1.0 organization of conference and workshop1.0 organization of conference and workshop venue, date...

1

ATPS 2003 ANNUAL CONFERENCE AND WORKSHOP REPORT

MASERU

LESOTHO

1.0 ORGANIZATION OF CONFERENCE AND WORKSHOP

VENUE, DATE OF CONFERENCE AND WORKSHOP

The 2003 Annual Conference and Workshop of an autonomous African Technology Policy StudiesNetwork (ATPS) was held at the Sun Hotel in Maseru, Lesotho, from November 10 to 15, 2003.

SUPPORT FOR THE CONFERENCE AND WORKSHOP

The 2003 Conference and Workshop was organized by ATPS and hosted by Lesotho’s Ministry ofCommunication, Science and Technology.

THEME OF CONFERENCE AND WORKSHOP

The theme of 2003 ATPS Conference and Workshop was “Science and Technology and FoodSecurity in Africa.”

OBJECTIVES OF THE CONFERENCE AND WORKSHOP

The objectives of the conference and workshop were:

1. To bring African perspectives to bear on the perennial problems of food insecurity in Africa.2. To discuss ways in which science and technology policy could contribute to enhance food

security in Africa.3. To share knowledge, experiences and expertise on science and technology policy initiatives

in Africa and beyond, with a view to improving food security in Africa.4. To appraise African scientists of the scientific, technological and biotechnology initiatives in

other countries with a view to drawing useful lessons in reducing food insecurity in theAfrican continent.

5. To review proposals for research by scientists on science and technology policy.6. To bring ATPS chapter co-ordinators together to discuss and review their activities of the

year, the progress made and the plans for the year, and to brief the Secretariat on theproblems encountered.

7. To hold the ATPS Annual General Meeting.8. To conduct a writing skills and research methodology workshop for participants.

2


MASERU

LESOTHO

Workshop and Conference Process and Methodology

The first two days of the meeting were devoted to plenary presentations by experts in various fieldsof science and technology and food security. The next two days were devoted to presentation andreview of research proposals in the areas of agricultural policy; information and communicationpolicy; technology transfer; trade and industry; intellectual property rights; gender ; small and mediumenterprises; and technology policy issues. A research methodology training and writing workshopwas held on the fourth day. The ATPS Annual General Meeting was held on the fifth day of theworkshop and the National Co-ordinators Meeting held on the sixth day. In addition to the plenarypresentations and review of proposals, an exhibition was mounted on various biotechnology initiativesin Lesotho and other countries. The exhibitions included traditional medicine and publications onscience and technology policy.

There was also an exhibition by chapters on their activities, won by Ethiopia.

3


MASERU

LESOTHO

2.0 Conference and Workshop: An ExecutiveSummaryAfrican scientists, experts, policymakers, civil society organizations and representatives of internationalorganizations from over 24 African countries met in Maseru, Lesotho, between October 10 and 15,2003 to deliberate on the perennial and persistent food insecurity problem in sub-Saharan Africa andto provide African perspectives towards a holistic approach to finding solutions to the problem,including the use of relevant tools of science and technology.

The following points summarize the deliberations and agreements at the conference:

1. Participants noted with satisfaction that this conference was not only timely but more importantlythe only one among many on this critical issue with a deliberate, strong African perspectives;

2. The conference acknowledged that sub-Saharan Africa is the only continent experiencingchronic food insecurity, largely because of the dependence on rain-fed agriculture, in spite ofthe great advances in the agricultural science and technology;

3. The conference noted that food insecurity in Africa is as a result of several failures: the failureof the international and national agricultural research systems; domestic policy failure, especiallyregarding science and technology; institutional weakness and market failures as well as thefailure to locate the food security problem within an economy-wide innovation system;

4. The conference argued for the exploration of a new way of measuring the performance ofboth the international and national agricultural research systems. The new way would incorporateincentives that require scientists to look beyond the laboratories and experimental systems,place less emphasis on published papers, encourage a move to a multi-disciplinary framework5. requiring more interaction with social scientists, ultimately to better appreciate policyimperatives and the requirements for moving from science to innovation;

6. Participants expressed concern that there are weak links or virtually none between theinternational agricultural research systems and the national systems and urged for strongerpartnership and collaboration between the two in a manner that minimizes the differences instatus and the condescending attitude of the international systems as generators of knowledgeand the national systems as mere extension agents;

7. Participants compared the experience of Asia with that of Africa and noted that one significantdifference in the success of Asia’s green revolution was the critical investment in water priorto the green revolution policies. Such investment is lacking in Africa where access to waterresources and irrigation technology is still limited. This is an issue that is compounded bysignificant differences in ecological, environmental and socio-cultural endowments within andacross African countries that make application of research results across countries very costly.In this respect, the conference noted that scientists exaggerate the universality of agriculturalscience, often minimizing the costs of transferring or adapting research knowledge from oneecological zone to another, and thus leading to frequent adoption failures;

4


MASERU

LESOTHO

8. The conference discussed the importance of new technology, and in particular, how biosciencescan be used to improve food security in Africa. It was noted that, in general, bioscienceresearch relating to livestock is expensive and under-funded. Participants lauded the idea ofestablishing centers of excellence where facilities and resources can be shared by manycountries. These centers would in turn serve as hubs for the much needed public–privatesector partnership both in the extension services and in the investment for technology uptake.Again, the conference emphasized that African researchers and institutions should have keyroles in the design and implementation of programs associated with these centers of excellence;

9. The conference noted with dismay that although Africa is largely agrarian, the poverty reductionstrategy papers (PRSP) already prepared in several African countries have assigned no roleto agricultural science and technology and the policy imperatives associated with this;

10. Participants reiterated that technology-led development is a leader-driven endeavor and thatAfrican leaders must show greater interest and take charge of the process that deploys scienceand technology to solve food insecurity in Africa, and ensure that agricultural technologicalcapabilities are built and that African scientists are significantly utilized in this process;

11. Participants observed that food insecurity in Africa is concern to African governments and theinternational community but that donor dependence cannot lead to a sustainable solution;

12. In their concluding remarks, the conference participants noted that Africans and Africaninstitutions should be strengthened to find a lasting solution to food insecurity because theybetter understand the African farmer, her cultural and environmental setting and the institutionalrequirements for the transfer knowledge to the farmer; and

13. The discussions of the conference were further guided by several commissioned thematicpapers on some of the key issues that affect agricultural performance in sub-Saharan Africa:1) WTO and the future of Africa’s agriculture; 2)From Science to Production: TransferringKnowledge to the Rural Farmer- What works and What Doesn’t; 3) Integrating Indigenousand Scientific Knowledge for Improved Food Security in Africa; 4) The BiotechnologyRevolution and Its implications for Food Security in Africa; 5) Agricultural Biotechnology andits implications for Food Security: Lessons from Asia and Latin America; 6) HarnessingInformation and Communication Technologies for Improved Agricultural Performance in Africa;7) Gender Dimensions of the Current Agricultural Performance in Africa; 8) Why has AfricaFallen Short of Building Dynamic Agro-processing Capabilities: Constraints, Options andProspects?; and 9) Markets, Institutions and Agricultural Performance in Africa.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Future of Africa’s Agriculture

14. The conference noted that generally trade liberalization potentially could benefit Africa’sagricultural performance by opening markets. Yet, WTO as an institution lacks completetransparency in its process and embodies in its structure, a great deal of power asymmetry inrepresentation between members. The conference, therefore, noted that the key to effectiveparticipation in WTO lies in capacity building of negotiators, and in Africa using its best peoplein the negotiating process. Africa must be fully engaged in the negotiations on the removal ofagricultural subsidies by industrialized countries as well as in shaping the WTO’s developmentagenda;

15. It was agreed that while this regime is important, there are other key factors that affect theperformance of agricultural commodities in the external market such as investment in waterand rural infrastructure, production techniques, standards and access to technology;

From Science to Production: Transferring Knowledge to the Rural African Farmers

16. The conference noted that the key to the transfer of knowledge to farmers lies in understandingthe African farmer, her environment, economic and socio-cultural circumstances. The participantsnoted that some of the bottlenecks to successful transfer of technology include inappropriatepackaging of technology and information, lack of participation by recipients in the knowledge

5


MASERU

LESOTHO

generation process; abrupt or lack of funding continuity; inefficient or inappropriate marketsand institutions;

17. Participants also discussed successful transfer experiences in Eritrea involving the NationalAgricultural Research and Extension Systems (NARES) and the International Crops ResearchInstitute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), the sorghum project in Nigeria and the EastAfrican Uji Mix. It was agreed that lessons from successful transfers will be documented inorder to fully appreciate the players and institutions involved and how these experiences caninform a national systems of innovation approach to food security;

Integrating Indigenous and Scientific Knowledge for Improved Food Security

18. The conference noted that scientific knowledge is validated based on experiments whileindigenous knowledge could be tacit and is validated based on experience. The participantsagreed that knowledge partnership is important, integrating both, and leading to innovation thatcapitalizes on the strength of both. Indigenous technological knowledge (ITK) is affordable,adaptable, and sustainable for the most part, and provides for non-formal agricultural education.It therefore strengthens farmers’ confidence and capacity to solve problems;

19. The participants noted that an experiment carried out in Kenya showed that some ITK methodswere as effective as scientific methods. The integration of both saw farmers making informeddecisions on crop management and production options while enabling researchers to forgestronger links with the farmers, cultivate their confidence and established a stronger basis forfurther experimentation and integration of both methods. The participants further noted thatincentives must be put in place to encourage scientists to work with farmers and to link theirwork to ITK in an institutional framework that recognizes the strengths of both knowledgegenerating processes;

The Biotechnology Revolution and its Implication for Food Security in Africa

20. The conference acknowledged the potential benefits of biotechnology in attaining food securitybut noted that the danger lies in the absence of capacity in Africa to make sophisticatedchoices, analyze and localize the benefits as well as the capacity to manage the attendantrisks; hence the need for investment in research and training. In most of Africa, the policyframework for evaluating and domesticating biotechnology is lacking. The conference notedthat this should be the first order of priority;

21. Participants noted that biotechnology is misunderstood in Africa leading to misinformation,confusion, generalization and simplistic assumptions. The conference noted that Africa shouldexamine the whole spectrum from tissue culture to Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs).They also noted that strong incentives should be provided to encourage the formation of strategicalliances and the participation of the various key players in this field. These alliances would beuseful in influencing, for the benefit of Africa, the global governance regimes that are emerging,requiring flexible enforcement of intellectual property rights and responsive regulatory policiesthat address the needs of Africa;

Harnessing Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) for ImprovedAgricultural Performance in Africa

22. The conference noted that ICTs could be used as strong tools to improve the performance ofagriculture in Africa through improved training, speedy access to marketing information, extensionservices, and meteorological information. Participants noted examples of agricultural skillsformation among rural women using telecentres and the use of ICT to educate, successfully,rural women on sustainable use of natural resources in food production;

6


MASERU

LESOTHO

23. The participants also noted that the benefits of ICTs to the rural farmer need to be furtherinterrogated to avoid “oversell”. Locating telecenters in rural areas does not translate intoaccess and benefits. Of critical importance is the information content, its relevance to theneeds of the farmers and the integration of their socio-cultural relevance in the packaging anddelivery of the information;

Gender Dimensions of Current Agricultural Performance in Africa

24. The conference noted that women play significant roles in Africa’s agriculture. The participantsobserved that in order to understand the gender dimension of Africa’s agriculture, one mustexamine it in the context of the role of women in Africa’s development, and the factors thatmilitate against their leadership role in the economy in all its facets. Women are the producersand laborers on the farm but the institutions that support agriculture are led by men. This stateof affairs is compounded by having extension services that are not sensitive to women’s learningbehavior and to other constraints that confront women in an African society;

25. The participants recognized that the HIV/AIDS scourge with higher incidence among womenwould affect adversely the performance of the agricultural sector, the nutritional status ofwomen and children, and increase overall gender inequity. This suggests a strong need toexamine the issues more holistically rather than sectorally;

26. The conference noted that the challenge in attaining gender equity was to deepen democracyin Africa, including democratization of access to technology, integrate women’s concerns inthe political discourse, and ensure greater participation by women with men and women workingin partnership to address developmental goals such as food security;

Why has Africa Fallen Short of Building Dynamic Agro-Processing Capabilities:Constraints, Options and Prospects?

27. The participants noted that a dynamic agro-processing capability was essential in improvingthe performance of agriculture in Africa and for overall improvement in food security. Agro-processing introduces dynamism in agriculture through technological linkages, improved learningand organization in the supply chain and the inevitable increase in the income of farmers. Theconference noted that robust economic and technology policies that engender this structuralshift, from the production of raw materials to its processing, and a strong implementationculture could be the key to Africa’s growth and development;

28. The conference noted that, unfortunately, past and present economic policies of governmentsin the region failed to recognize that technology arising from new knowledge was the engine ofgrowth. The participants noted that some of the economic polices were anti-technology andanti-innovation. Thus, the structural shift that could have boosted the agro-processing industryfailed to materialize as a result;

29. Participants noted that to build a strong agro-processing capability, economic and technologypolicy must be integrated; trade and production have to be linked; technological capabilitybuilding, technology transfer and domestic content must be emphasized for all firms particularlymultinationals. A country with a national system of innovation approach would be better able toovercome the constraints and stimulate better economic performance;

Markets, Institutions and Agricultural Performance in Africa

30. The conference noted that African farmers face problems of transaction costs, missing markets,poor infrastructure, and other institutional constraints that limit the benefits from engaging inagricultural production;

31. The participants further noted that these issues were not adequately recognized in the designand implementation of the structural adjustment or current liberalization programs. There were

7


MASERU

LESOTHO

renewed debates around the wisdom of abolishing marketing boards in Africa and how it couldhave denied farmers a source of new knowledge, credit guarantee, quality control, price stabilityand rural infrastructure. The conference agreed that the previous assumptions that the privatesector would fill any necessary vacuum created by the demise of the marketing boards havefailed to materialize. As well, the huge supply response from higher farm-gate prices nevermaterialized; and

The conference noted that indigenous approach to developing market and market information areessential for enhanced agricultural sector performance. Such collective and concerted efforts amongfarmers, agro-processors, and governments must target the re-establishment of grades and standards,provision of market information, access to credit, reconfiguration of agricultural support institutionsand rural infrastructural development.

8


MASERU

LESOTHO

3.0 CONFERENCE AND WORKSHOP OPENING CEREMONYThe official opening of the conference and workshop was conducted by Lesotho’s Minister forCommunications, Science and Technology, Dr. ‘Mamphono Khaketla, who set the right mood forthe meeting by demonstrating the government’s support for the conference and the recommendationsexpected from it. The minister challenged the conference to address food insecurity, arguing thatfood security does not refer only to production, but also to ways of preserving food for local andregional use. She further challenged the scientists to research into indigenous and current systemsof food production, storage and preservation and meet the challenges of today.

Dr. Khaketla underscored the central role of science and technology in driving modern economiesand thus called for a change of attitude towards science subjects in schools with a view to strengtheningtheir teaching. She further called for support for research and development to turn knowledge intogoods and services. “We need to re-tap our indigenous technology capabilities of food production forfood storage and preservation practice.” She praised a paper presented by ATPS’ Khalil-Timamyand Osita Ogbu at a Nepad meeting in Johannesburg in which, she said, the writers decried theromanticising of science and technology by African governments who also pay lip service to thediscipline.

Dr. Khaketla also warned that the challenges raised by ATPS should also be addressed at theregional and global level involving such organisations as the African Union, NEPAD, theCommonwealth, UNCTAD and the UN Commission for Science and Technology. The conference,she said, should come up with a solution on how science and technology can be utilized to satisfy theurgent economic needs of the region.

The Minister welcomed participants to Lesotho, saying her ministry was greatly honoured to co-host the meeting. Lesotho would use the outputs of the conference to improve the country’s foodsecurity, she said, expressing hope that ATPS member countries would immensely benefit from theMaseru meeting.

Statement by Principal Secretary, Ministry of Communications, Science andTechnology

The Principal Secretary in the Ministry of Communications, Science and Technology, Mr. T. ‘Mokela,said Lesotho was greatly honoured to host ATPS’ Third Annual Conference and Workshop. Lesotho,he said, was pleased to share the experiences gained from the meeting in building sound science andtechnology policies for the country. The theme for the conference was most appropriate, he observed,as the event had come at a time when most of sub-Saharan Africa was reeling from the effects ofprolonged periods of drought.

Mr. ‘Mokela said science and technology policies were needed to manage disasters in Africa.Efforts towards improving the lot in Africa should be collaborative, he said, emphasizing the need forpartnerships on the continent.

9


MASERU

LESOTHO

Statement by the ATPS Chairman

Professor Norah Olembo, the ATPS chairperson, rang an optimistic note by urging African countriesto embrace science and technology to launch a green revolution. China and India could now feedtheir vast populations after exploiting the benefits of science and technology, she said, calling onAfrica to do the same.

Prof. Olembo said an estimated 14.5 million people required emergency food aid in southernAfrica. In the Horn of Africa, an estimated 12-14 million people risked food insecurity. The chairmansaid the solution to Africa’s food insecurity lay in science and technology policy research and calledon African countries to develop capacities leading to improved food security.

The agricultural sector, on which 70 percent of Africans depend, should be strengthened throughscience and technology research, she said, if the continent is to advance. She noted that ATPS hadlaunched a capacity building programme for parliamentarians to enable them formulate policies andenact legislation that integrate science and technology policies into national development programmes.

She paid special tribute to the ATPS Lesotho National Chapter and the Ministry of Communications,Science and Technology for organizing the conference and workshop.

Opening Remarks by ATPS Executive Director

Dr. Osita Ogbu, the ATPS Executive Director, reiterated his network’s commitment to appraisingAfrican leaders of the centrality of science and technology policy in the development agenda. Hesaid the network had examined most development strategies and poverty reduction papers in Africaand explained their futility in the absence of sound science and technology policies.

On a more positive note, he said, African leaders had begun to pay attention to scientists andspecifically to African scientists, thus giving hope to Africa’s renaissance. Still, Africa was besetwith poverty, epitomized in food insecurity and disease. Dr. Ogbu said it was extremely dishearteningto see Africans dying of hunger and curable diseases at a time when others were exploring newplanets and inventing new technologies.

Dr. Ogbu said ATPS, whose mandate was to guide African countries on science and technologypolicy issues, had recognized that science has a context. Science and technology must be integratedin culture for meaningful development to be achieved. He said ATPS’ role was to raise theconsciousness of African scientists, leaders and development partners and to push the Africanperspective into discourse on the international scene in order to find sound solutions to food insecurity.

He called on participants to pay special attention to the presentations from experts and to critiquethem with a view to forging a scientific and technological ethos for the continent. Dr. Ogbu wasoptimistic that the mounting of the meeting was a clear signal of a break with the past where thecontinent solely depended on foreigners for knowledge and ideas.

Africa could solve its problems in the spirit of NEPAD, by encouraging the development ofpartnerships that recognize the abundance of African intellectuals and capacity.

The Executive Director lauded the Government of Lesotho for co-hosting the conference andworkshop. He noted the network had conducted a workshop for legislators in the kingdom. Heacknowledged the representation of regional and international organizations and thanked theorganizations and national governments that had paid their way to the conference. Some of theorganizations included the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), the InternationalLivestock Research Institute (ILRI), the United Nations Economic Commission of Africa (UNECA),the Federal Ministry of Science and Technology of Nigeria and the United Nations UniversityInstitute for New Technology (UNU/INTECH).

10


MASERU

LESOTHO

Vote of Thanks

Dr. Osita Ogbu passed a vote of thanks after the statement from Dr. Khaketla. He said the minister’sspeech demonstrated ATPS was succeeding in efforts to have decision makers view science andtechnology as the engine of development in any country. A clear testimony to the minister’s seriousnesson the issues was the fact that she had read closely ATPS’ contribution to the NEPAD meeting inJohannesburg in November, which she had referred to in her address.

Further positive indication of the government’s commitment to embracing science and technologypolicy was Lesotho’s hosting of a workshop for parliamentarians conducted by ATPS. The ExecutiveDirector also noted the minister’s emphasis on the need to strengthen science and mathematicsteaching at all levels of education, saying ATPS had also taken the challenge and was poised to helpAfrican governments improve teaching of the subjects by providing the necessary policy guidance.

Dr. Ogbu observed the Johannesburg NEPAD meeting had stressed the importance of researchand development and expressed satisfaction that new ways of financing the initiative were beingsought. He emphasized that use of new technologies would contribute to eradication of poverty onthe continent.

The Keynote by the Director-General, ILRI

The keynote address was delivered by Dr. Tom Randolf on behalf of the Director-General of theInternational Livestock Research Institute, Dr. Carlos Seré. He said ILRI was keen to shareexperiences and support experiments that would contribute to new ways of fighting food insecurityon the continent. Africa, he said, had made considerable achievements in science and technology foragriculture and cited the NERICA rice case as an example. However, food security on the continentwas threatened by the emergence and spread of HIV/Aids.

The paper, titled “Innovation in Research to Improve Food Security in Africa: ILRI’sPerspective” observed Africa had made impressive achievements in science and technology,particularly in agriculture. However, there had been a continuing deterioration of food security thatwas precipitated by emerging threats, including HIV/Aids and climatic change. ILRI’s mandate, itwas pointed out, is to reduce poverty and make sustainable development possible through livestock-related research.

The institute has already adopted a strategy aimed at making its research activities contribute topoverty reduction.

The speaker said ILRI was poised to meet the new challenges through a new institutional strategy,institutional experiments, emerging principles and the institute’s ILRI had moved from its traditionalapproach that was, generally, successful in generating research solutions for defined problems butfailed in-offering solutions with impact and embraced an outcome-oriented research approach thataimed at innovation outcomes. The new approach viewed research as one input into an innovationsystem, with the researchers’ responsibility extended to encompass outcome. The new approachalso appreciates the role of end-users and others in the innovation system. It starts at the end-point,leading to a demand-driven agenda.

The new strategy has implications on how research is organized. It deals with identifying researchpriorities, defining the research agenda, organizing research terms, and forming new partnershiparrangements.

Participants learnt that the new strategy – Experimenting with Institutions Innovations – mustrethink the role of research with the outcome in mind. Using a livelihoods approach, ILRI hadidentified three principal livestock-supported “pathways out of poverty.” Participants were told thethree opportunities the institute had taken to improve livelihood outcomes were:

• Securing the assets of the poor – thus reducing their vulnerability and permittingaccumulation of investment

• Sustainably improving the productivity of production systems of the poor – driven mainlyby choice of technology.

11


MASERU

LESOTHO

• Improving market opportunities for the poor – driven by combination of institutional andtechnological improvements.

The institute is also innovating on themes and teams to enhance internal structure and agenda toensure disciplinary programmes replaced by research themes are defined by targeted outcomes,and to facilitate dynamic team composition dependent on needs.

The institute is also innovating on collective priority setting at national, regional and internationallevels besides involvement in internalising an innovation systems approach that promotes partnerships,emphasizes knowledge management and allows stakeholder partnership analysis.

Another innovation is on joint programmes, for instance between ILRI and IFPRI that allowssharing of resources, synergies focused on a common outcome. An example is how livestockbiotechnology may best be used for development. The institute has also been innovating on publicprivate partnerships to enhance vaccine development and diagnostics. ILRI also has a biosciencesinitiative, an innovation aimed at researching into ways in which livestock livelihoods make a largercontribution to human and environmental well-being.

The revised research agenda innovation assesses the human-health impacts that were previouslynot considered part of the research mandate.

Participants learnt that making research outcome-oriented and transforming the research systeminto an innovation system requires fundamental change of culture in a research institute and aresearch system. It also requires the spirit of experimentation. It also became clear that it is inevitablefor science and technology to be used by African researchers to solve African problems. But thespeaker noted the new paradigm was threatened by:

• Africa’s continued brain drain.• Funding instability.

Issues Arising from Dr. Sere’s Presentation

The National Co-ordinator for Ethiopia observed that in the past, agricultural initiatives in Africa hadtended to be linear, arguing it was important to put indigenous knowledge on board. He argued thatthe contribution of indigenous knowledge to eradication of hunger on the continent was missing fromthe presentation. The co-ordinator submitted that there was a change of attitude among experts anddecision makers that now focused on the importance of indigenous knowledge in the fight againstthe problems bedevilling Africa. He also sought to know how ILRI proposed to deal with the problemof the brain drain on the continent.

A delegate from Lesotho cautioned the presenter to be more careful with the definition of“innovation”, observing that the paper had made many references to “innovation” without beingclear on the meaning.

A participant from Ethiopia argued that the focus of science and technology tended to be lookingfor local solutions rather than outcomes. From Swaziland, a participant sought clarity on the type ofinstruments to facilitate sustained collaboration among institutions in Africa fighting hunger. Hefurther submitted that extension is responsible for service delivery once scientists have finished theirwork but had tended to be ignored.

A Kenyan delegate said farmers had well-established systems in that country’s rural areas.However, he expressed fear that failure to integrate such systems in the overall development processwould condemn them to failure. He also wanted clarification on how the biosciences would addressthe problem of the brain drain but noted that NEPAD had an elaborate programme where governmentshad failed. In NEPAD, he said, one could see a structure but back at home a system of supportingscientists was lacking.

Another participant observed that livestock population on the continent had been dwindling andILRI’s budget had drastically fallen to US$ 26 million at a time when 70 percent of the continent’spopulation kept livestock. He submitted that the budget was too small to adequately respond to themandate of ILRI. Still, he sought to know how the institute planned to share its facilities withprospective collaborators and who would drive the collaborative agenda.

12


MASERU

LESOTHO

The speaker further said farmers are first and foremost entrepreneurs and sought to be educatedon the innovative farming approaches that would make their work successful.

The ATPS Chairman, Prof. Norah Olembo, faulted the presentation for failing to show how ILRIplanned to tackle livestock diseases, which, she said, continued to hamper livestock production onthe continent.

Responses to Issues Emerging from the Presentation

1. Dr. Randolf said ILRI did not only focus on farmers but also on indigenous knowledge.2. ILRI also was keen to have a lot of work done locally rather than outside, particularly in the

field of biotechnology. A lot of initiatives could be addressed communally, he said.3. On the definition of “innovation”, Dr. Randolf submitted he was unclear of the “subtle

differences.”4. On the differences between “solutions” and output-oriented research, Dr. Randolf said

ILRI had previously not laid emphasis on outcomes. Their work, however, was now people-oriented.

5. Dr. Randolf said there was need to adopt participation approaches to monitoring and evaluationand to link up with other partners for tangible progress to be achieved.

6. On the centrality of extension work in the eradication of hunger, he pointed out that theservice had largely “evaporated” in most of Africa except southern Africa where it was stillgovernment supported. But he stressed the need to involve other stakeholders in findingsustainable solutions to food security.

7. On biosciences and how they could be used to improve farming, Dr. Randolf said thediscipline requires huge investments, which poor countries could ill afford. The idea oflaunching “centres of excellence”, he said, was laudable and a certain step in amelioratinghunger and poverty. Such centres would allow the sharing of resources and facilities andcreate a meeting point for the private and public sectors.

8. On the ILRI budget vis-à-vis its mandate, Dr. Randolf conceded that livestock researchwas under-funded and donors were aware of the fact. He submitted, however, that thematter was “less threatening” and that ILRI was coming up with “new innovations” toaddress the matter.

9. On the submission that CGIAR had had little impact in Africa and whether it had not donethings the wrong way, Dr. Randolf said most players in the field had indeed done things thewrong way, probably as a consequence of reduced budgets. What was required, he said,was that organisations innovate.

10. Dr. Randolf said ILRI had not abandoned the tackling of diseases but said long-term plansfor vaccines against various diseases were lacking. “The challenge is enormous,” Dr. Randolfdeclared. “We are looking for support, private partnership to harness resources to carry outthe work.”

11. Dr. Ogbu said on the collaborative front, it is important to understand the consultative processthat links scientists to ILRI.

12. Dr. Ogbu said failure of three ILRI projects was a major lesson for the institute. Theorganization had taken up the challenges ahead, he said, and ATPS should find ways ofworking with the institute.

13. Prof. Oliver Saasa, an ATPS Board member, said one must go beyond food security whendiscussing science and technology and examine the impacts – the extent to which outcomesaffect the poor.

13


MASERU

LESOTHO

4.0 CONFERENCE PLENARY PRESENTATIONS1. DR. ABLASSÉ OUEDRAOGO

THE FUTURE OF AFRICAN AGRICULTURE IN THE CONTEXT OF WTO AGRICULTURALNEGOTIATIONS.

This presentation was delivered by Dr. Ablassé Ouedraogo, a former Deputy Director-General ofthe World Trade Organization (WTO). The presenter discussed the possible impact of WTOnegotiations on food security in African countries and the possible effects on the competitiveness ofAfrican agricultural products on foreign markets.

He noted that food security is a major pre-occupation for African countries and that it is vital forAfrica to be able to maintain a certain level of agricultural production to reduce the worsening foodsituation.

Farmers’ access to adequate income would help to protect large populations against malnutrition,he said, and called for a tariff protection to stem massive importation of subsidy products.

He noted that 25 African LDCs are members of WTO. If they secure the WTO tariff facility, hesaid, they would make an important step towards guaranteeing their food security.

African countries, which naturally will not enjoy tariff reduction exemption, he said, are battlingfor recognition of the notion of “strategic products” or “specific products” which would enable themto apply for very low tariff reductions to their sensitive imports. With regard to non-tariff measures,he said, African countries should grant farmers assistance to improve yields.

On competitiveness, the presenter said the issue could not be confined to the dismantling oftariffs, to quantitative restrictions or to subsidies in foreign markets. Such measures could have bothpositive and negative effects.

Competitiveness of African agricultural products should be analysed from the perspective ofgreater opening of markets, particularly in developed countries, which would result in tariff reductionsthat the latter would apply. The important issue, however, is whether the tariff reductions by developedcountries benefit African countries.

The speaker contended that food security and competitiveness of African countries’ agriculturalcommodities on the external market do not depend exclusively on relations with the developed worldor international organizations. Many other factors, which are considered peripheral, matter a greatdeal. These include issues that affect investment, production techniques and access to technology,among others.

Dr. Ouedraogo also said the long-term fluctuation and downswing of African commodity priceshave had negative effects in Africa’s agricultural development. However, he stressed that thefuture of African agriculture would depend on the results of the on-going WTO negotiations. Hestrongly proposed that African countries get involved in the negotiations to create a framework thatwould reflect their own concerns.

14


MASERU

LESOTHO

DISCUSSION OF DR. OUEDRAOGO’S PRESENTATION

Dr. Mohamed Khalil-Timamy was the discussant of the presentation. He noted the paper clearlyshowed Africa faced enormous problems relating to food security. The presentation , he said, hadreminded him of Karl Marx’s statement “Men had first to eat before they could build civilization”.

Dr. Khalil noted the paper had succinctly addressed issues of food production and export marketsand the need to revamp local production. He recalled Dr. Julius Nyerere’s call in Rome for aninitiative to maintain stocks during high production seasons to be used as security during low seasons.The problem of infrastructure had been well addressed, he noted, saying without sound infrastructure,distribution and marketing of Africa’s products would be difficult to achieve.

ISSUES ARISING FROM DR. OUEDRAOGO’S PRESENTATION

A Nigerian participant observed that WTO issues were extremely complex and thus required top-notch professionals to represent Africa. He called on ATPS to seriously consider taking up capacitybuilding for negotiators in WTO meetings to ensure African interests were adequately taken careof. At present, he lamented, the quality of negotiators for Africa was greatly wanting.

A Zambian delegate wondered if there were programmes for capacity building to address thequality of negotiations at WTO fora. He also stressed the need to step up food production andexports on the continent and decried Africa’s over-reliance on non-traditional food crops. Thedelegate strongly disagreed that Africa is poor, arguing that the true position is that the continent hadnot exploited its potential.

A Kenyan delegate wondered what countries would do in the absence of support while a Nigerianwondered what role WTO should play in governance and what role regional institutions could playin changing institutional attitudes and beliefs.

Dr. Ogbu said there had been a gap between expectation and reality in WTO negotiations andoutcomes. The true position, however, was that WTO treaties are binding to all. Despite thisreality, arm-twisting in WTO issues was a reality, he said, and wondered whether countries outsidethe WTO ambit like Ethiopia, suffered in any way.

Dr. Victor Konde raised issue with the transparency of WTO fora, seeking to find out who isinvited to the organization’s meetings and who is not. He also sought to find out why the CancumWTO meeting flopped and why tariffs on Africa’s exports kept going up.

DR. OUEDRAOGO’S RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED

1. Dr. Ouedraogo explained that WTO is an international organization dealing with the rules oftrade. To become a member, a country had to meet certain conditions. He further explainedthat it was not a UN organization. Responding to resentments expressed against theorganization, the presenter said those authorised to make decisions were members. Tobelong to an organization one had to abide by its rules. If an organization was bad, the buckshould rest with member countries. He said experts were encouraging Ethiopia into joiningWTO.

2. On WTO’s transparency, the speaker said before Seattle, WTO tended to call the developedcountries to meetings and use the less developed to rubber-stamp the organization’s decisions.The reason, he posited, was that developed countries knew their rights.

3. On the quality of negotiations at WTO meetings, Dr. Ouedraogo said Africa is extremelyweak on that score. “We took ministers to Gabon to learn about WTO… We tried to bringWTO to Africa,” the speaker said. “At the time, there were 19 Africans out of a staff of500 working at WTO. When I left, there were only 50 Africans.”

4. On capacity building, the speaker said WTO had begun to address development issues. Hecautioned against wholesale condemnation of the organization, saying what it needed wasimprovement. “Because of the increasing number of members, getting a consensus onissues is difficult.”

15


MASERU

LESOTHO

5. He conceded Cancum was a failure. But he added the flop occurred when Africa hadregistered the highest number of members. However, Africa had no negotiations strategists,not because it lacked such personnel, but because it always failed in identifying and usingthe right calibre. He said the only positive thing for Africa was that the continent had arepresentation. Africa wanted agricultural issues discussed at Cancum but developed countrieswanted other issues discussed.

6. The speaker conceded that Africa needed to seriously give thought to the calibre of itsnegotiators. He added that out of 50 independent countries, 16 countries have noambassadorial representation.

7. The discussant for the paper, Dr. Khalil said WTO and related organisations are instrumentsof international disenfranchisement.

2. PROF. A. BABATUNDE OBILANA

FROM SCIENCE TO PRODUCTION – TRANSFERRING KNOWLEDGE TO THERURAL AFRICAN FARMERS: WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOESN’T

This presentation was delivered by Professor A. Babatunde Obilana, Principal Scientist (Breeding)at the International Crops Research Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT). The presenterdiscussed food security issues in sub-Saharan Africa and gave the FAO definition of food securityas existing “when all people at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe andnutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life”. Hegave the components of food security as physical access to food at all levels including householdand community levels; economic access to food at all levels; food sufficiency; physiological accessto food for biological growth, development and a healthy environment; risk of loss of access to food;human rights in terms of food delivery, policies and politics.

The speaker also discussed the methodologies of measuring food security and the appropriatetechnologies to alleviate food insecurity. Such technologies include agro biodiversity, production andharvesting, post-harvest and processing, adding value, utilization and commercialisation, markets,information and communications, and policy initiative.

Prof. Obilana also discussed Africa’s popular but under-utilized crops before addressing theissue of partnerships and knowledge transfer. Major partners include collaborators in science andtechnology, development, private and public sectors, and stakeholders and beneficiaries. He furtherdiscussed transfer of technology, showing the role of markets, institutions, policy and an enablingenvironment in adoption and sustenance of technology exchange before listing appropriatetechnological practices.

The speaker also gave several case studies of biotechnology success including Eritrea’s cropimprovement project between the country’s NARES and ICRISAT, Nigeria’s Sorghum project andeastern Africa’s Uji Mix Project. He said bottlenecks in technology transfer practices arose fromdissemination of inappropriate technology and information, poor technology transfer management,forced technology transfer, policy changes by multinational food industries and delays in decision-making by principal investigators. Bottlenecks, he pointed out, also arose from abrupt cutting offunding, lack of commitment to projects, application of inappropriate technologies and lack of realizationof the benefits of technology transfer.

Discussing partnerships and realms of knowledge transfer, Prof Obilana identified the levels ofparticipation in research and development activities and the sharing of experiences. The four majorgroups that must be involved in partnerships and knowledge transfer are science and technologypartners, development partners, public and private sector partners, stakeholders, and beneficiaries.

16


MASERU

LESOTHO

The presenter said for success and impact in technology transfer specific practical processesmust be adhered to.These are:

• Preliminary discussions, exchange of visits and follow-up correspondence on intentionsfor collaboration.

• Preliminary meetings of core team members should follow.• Follow-up planning meetings to confirm collaboration, identify project, available

technologies for exchange, team members, agreed objectives and expected outputs.• Joint workplanning to agree on team members, responsibilities, methodologies, timing,

location of collaborative projects, research (and development) activities, sources offunds and budget, and inputs from each team or stakeholder.

• Joint implementation of agreed workplansincluding reporting, documentation and publication, benefits allocation and sharing.

• Assistance with project proposal writing, brokering between NARS and the privatesector.

• Training, education, and provision of books, pamphlets, handouts, flyers, papers, academicdocuments, and practical handbooks.

• Networking and preparation of network documentation, putting in place networkimplementation process and coordination.

• Respect for team members’ opinions and perceived or real needs.• Identification, upfront, of team members or each stakeholder’s benefits for agreed

outputs resulting from the technology transfer and exchange activities.• Trust, from all collaborators, which must be developed and built into the process.

He used case studies to show what in technology transfer terms works and what does not andwhy. In the case of Eritrea’s sorghum and pearl millet improvement project, NARES and ICRISATreleased four improved varieties to the farmers. These were rapidly adopted and adequate quantitiesof good quality seeds were produced, through technology transfer processes with research, extensionand seed farmers. The project was a success because:

• Sorghum and millet crops account for a significant 58 percent of Eritrea’s total agriculturalcrop production.

• Appropriate varieties of the crops were developed by ICRISAT breeders, collaborativelytested and verified in the country with the national scientists and farmers, through asystematic technology transfer approach.

• Financial and institutional policy support were available from donors and the government.• Technical and catalytic support were provided in the country and outside by ICRISAT,

through its regional and international influence.• There was dire need to replenish seed and food sources of thousands of farmers lost

during the war.

In a second case that worked well sorghum replaced barley in malting, beverage and brewingindustries in Nigeria following that country’s release of sorghum variety SK 5912 that had beenimproved by the Institute for Agricultural Research (IAR.) Samaru, Nigeria. IAR’s Dr A.B. Obilana(presently with ICRISAT), spearheaded the efforts to screen and evaluate SK 5912 along withsome 500 other accessions, for grain quality traits. By 1982, the collaborative efforts to evaluatesuitable varieties of Nigerian sorghum had expanded to include other partners in industry.

The shift to sorghum was successful for the reasons given in the first case. It also succeededbecause of:

• The availability of technology (tested and verified R&D for using sorghum malt tobrew lager beer).

• Very strong government policy for change in export and import policies and raw materialsubstitution.

17


MASERU

LESOTHO

• The presence of a large demand (in the large Nigerian population) and industrialmanufacturing supply base (in the form of more than 10 very large brewing and foodprocessing companies)

• Commitment of R&D scientists and researchers with their technology transfer skills• Effective networking among research scientists (breeders, food technologists), brewers,

brewery outlets, marketing agents, farmers and seed producers, and government• The expected benefits envisaged by farmers and producers for increased production,

and other stakeholders in the malt brewery industry chain are materializing.• The potential of spillover of the technology for use in the food industry is being achieved.

He also discussed the case of Uji Mix whose technology transfer, he contended, was going towork. Uji Mixes, sorghum and finger millet-based porridge products, are most widespread in Eastand Central Africa, around the Lake Zone (especially Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and NorthernTanzania). The products, thin porridges mainly for breakfast, sometimes fortified with soya andsoured with lemon or lime juice, are available and accessible in supermarkets and communal marketsacross the supply chain from village to peri-urban and urban areas. The technologies for processing,packaging and marketing were effectively transferred by both research and industry, with farmerknowledge. He said the technology transfer would work because:

• Appropriate technology is available and the products are on the market shelves.• Better types of machines to improve quality of product are being sourced.• Information on improved sorghum and finger millet varieties to improve quality and

consistency of products are now being provided from research.• Discussions are on-going on how to expand the farmers milling industry and on how to

sustain it for quality, quantity and consistency.

Prof Obilana also identified the bottlenecks in technology transfer and the problems that hinderrealization of expected outputs. These include:

• Dissemination of inappropriate technology information.• Lack of technology transfer management.• Imposed technology transfer.• Policy change and policy bypass by multinational manufacturing food and feed industries,

including private seed companies and related stakeholders.• Delays in decision making by principal investigators or donors.• Abrupt cut off of funds, and funding shortages.• Lack of commitment to the technology transfer and exchange.• Unavailability of appropriate technologies.• Lack of clarity on the benefits to stakeholders.

The presenter proposed policy actions that would enable the resource- poor farmer participate intechnology transfer successfully:

• Removal of institutional mandates which militate against the achievement of fullparticipatory and partnership approaches. Such modifications should include staffrecognition and remuneration for time and skill in partnership development, in additionto normal responsibilities.

• Creation of enabling environment in form of strategies to bring together farmers,researchers, developers, government functionaries and parliamentarians, for planningand implementation of technology and knowledge transfer.

• Putting in place strong policy research, training and development in the area oftechnology transfer for food security agendas.

• Putting in place a policy strategy to highlight and promote identified success stories onwhat has worked through effective and appropriate technology transfer. In the samevein, the strategy should note and document what technology transfer approaches havenot worked, so that they can be improved or changed.

18


MASERU

LESOTHO

• Facilitating and encouraging the development and use of new technology transferapproaches. The facilitation and establishment of national technology policy studiesinstitutions and departments with the assistance of the African Technology Policy StudiesNetwork, is in the right direction. It is a most desirable intervention in the national andregional efforts to improve technology and knowledge transfer approaches with farmersand stakeholders, for achieving food security in sub-Saharan Africa.

• Putting in place policy initiatives that encourage the broker- catalyst bridge-promoterparadigm in nation and regional training and research-for-development programmes.Such initiatives should strengthen and also support, strongly, the growing informationand communication technology (ICT) in SSA, especially at the community and farmerlevels, where capacities are low, and still in their infancy.

• Encouraging strong policy support and recognition of technology transfer skills andcommitment.

3. MARTIN KIMANI

INTEGRATING INDIGENOUS AND SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE FOR IMPROVED FOODSECURITY

The presentation was delivered by Mr. Martin Kimani of the Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences(CABI). The speaker said scientific knowledge is validated and based on experiments, whileindigenous knowledge is validated but based on experience. Both types of knowledge, he proposed,should be appreciated through knowledge partnerships, with innovation capitalizing on both. Hegave a rationale for use of indigenous technological knowledge arguing it provides a firm opportunityfor positive change, is environmentally sound, conserves natural resources and is socially desirable.ITK is also economically affordable, is adaptable, sustainable and provides for non-formal agriculturaleducation. It is also dynamic and creative and it strengthens farmers’ confidence and capacity tosolve problems.

The speaker said ITK could be applied in organic farming, integrated production of pestmanagement and in participatory technology development. It is also applicable to conservation andsustainable use of agro biodiversity, water conservation, storage and agro forestry.

The presenter cited experiments carried out in Kenya showing some ITK methods were aseffective as scientific methods. From the experiments, he said, farmers were able to make informeddecisions on crop management and production options while the researchers gained direct links withthe farmers and had established a firm ground for expansion of their work.

ISSUES EMERGING FROM MR. KIMANI’S PRESENTATION

A delegate complained that the presenter tended to place scientific knowledge above indigenousknowledge, arguing the hegemony of scientific knowledge was today questionable. He lamentedthe paper’s tendency to show farmers’ knowledge had been tested in a scientific paradigm.

Another delegate wondered what future ITK had while yet another argued what was termed asindigenous knowledge may have been adopted from other places.

Further questions arose as to why farmers were discouraged from use of fertilizers during colonialtimes owing to their harmful effects on sustainable farming but were today being encouraged, andhow people with indigenous knowledge would be identified. It also was argued that the reasons whycertain things would work in the realm of indigenous knowledge and others did not work should beinterrogated. Transfer of indigenous knowledge was also found to be tricky because it is culture andlocation–specific while reliance on ITK for food security was questioned.

19


MASERU

LESOTHO

RESPONSE TO MR. KIMANI’S PRESENTATION

1. The speaker emphasized the importance of understanding that not everything ITK works,as much as not everything that is scientific works.

2. He further proposed that incentives be given to encourage scientists to work with farmers.He proposed the setting up of institutional framework to link scientists with farmers.

4. PROF. MAFA SEJANAMANE

LESOTHO’S INITIATIVES TOWARDS FOOD SECURITY: A SITUATION ANALYSIS

Prof. Mafa Sejanamane of the Department of Political and Administrative Studies at the NationalUniversity of Lesotho delivered the presentation decrying the country’s worsening food securitysituation. The paper painted a gloomy picture of Lesotho’s efforts to end hunger in the country,blaming government’s indecisiveness in working out an efficient food management and productionprogramme, the dependence of donors in virtually every national initiative, and the spread of theHIV/Aids scourge. The paper demonstrated that donors were largely responsible for the shaping ofgovernment policy in Lesotho, thus complicating any real and homegrown efforts at solving theworsening food situation in the country. Still, for almost 30 years the speaker said, no elaboratepolicies addressing agricultural policy had been formulated and even when a move towards self-sufficiency in food security came in the 1980s, the strategy was soon to fail, following a blockage bySouth Africa. The strategy was abandoned soon afterwards.

The presenter acknowledged, however, that the government had in 2003 begun to address foodinsecurity much more seriously, as shown by its policy documents, Subsidies in Agriculture Sector:Policy Statement and Implementation Framework, Agricultural Sector Strategy and MarketLiberalization.

COMMENTS FROM THE PRESENTATION’S DISCUSSANT

Prof. Babatunde Obilana was the discussant for the paper. He lamented that Lesotho’s food insecuritysituation had remained that way for many years but acknowledged the fact that some of its problemsemanated from the fact that it was both land and country-locked. The country had extended gulliesand hills, making exploitation of the land difficult. “Lesotho is in Limbo,” he said. The discussantsaid he had visited Lesotho many times in the past but the story seemed to be the same - gloom -owing to a state of looming hunger and starvation. The country has a population of 2.5 millionpeople, with only one-third of it being habitable.

ISSUES EMERGING FROM THE PRESENTATION

A delegate submitted that Lesotho had in the past fed its own people and South Africa and wonderedwhat could have gone wrong.

The Chairman of the ATPS, Prof. Norah Olembo, proposed the use of subsidies to farmers toimprove agriculture and production, and application of organic farming whenever the possibilityarose.

A delegate from Lesotho said the country’s definition of development was wanting. In addition,he said, there was a tendency to “romanticise” what the government should do, advising that theprivate sector, which he said had often been “rebuffed” from the development agenda, be put onboard. Corruption must also be ended if progress is to be realized.

Dr. Ogbu observed that there was a link between food production and the incidence of HIV/Aidsin Lesotho.

20


MASERU

LESOTHO

Prof. Oliver Saasa brought out the irony in food security. In Zambia, for example, people livingin urban areas had greater food security than those living and producing food in the rural areas. Hecalled for intensification of farming where smaller pieces of land would produce greater yields.“This calls for innovation,” he said.

PROF. SEJANAMANE’S RESPONSE

1. The Government of Lesotho has been considering use of water, a primary resource in thecountry, to help address food insecurity.

2. There have been many efforts by the government to improve water and food situation butall in vain. He said the problem arose from a lack of focus.

5. DR. VICTOR KONDE

THE BIOTECHNOLOGY REVOLUTION AND ITS IMPLICATION FOR FOOD SECURITYIN AFRICA

Dr. Victor Konde of the United Nations Centre for Trade and Development (UNCTAD) gave anAfrican perspective to the problem of biotechnology evolution and food security on the continent.He said biotechnology presents opportunities and challenges to Africa: it promises to meet foodsecurity needs, improve production and incomes for farmers on the continent, but limited internationalmarkets, a weak scientific base, poor development strategies and investment are a threat to itsimpact.

The presenter said all technologies have benefits and opportunities that have to be harnessed,and risks to be managed. GMOs present farmers with the ability to overcome weeds, pests anddiseases that cause huge losses annually in ways never imagined before. However, few Africancountries, he said, have enthusiastically embraced the technology to build industries, health servicesand agricultural sector. There are even fewer that have developed clear strategies to ensure theybecome global participants.

In addition, he said, budgets to universities and research institutions have continued to decline inmost of Africa and donor support for basic and applied research have declined as the focus hasshifted to experimental development. This has affected manpower training, research activities andconditions of service that have been the mainstay of biotechnology industry development.

But he emphasized that biotechnology holds many opportunities for developing countries andAfrica in particular. However, Africa will need to develop its manpower base, stimulate industrialparticipation and donors to develop a biotechnology sector. It should provide incentives that encourageformation of strategic alliances and participation of various players.

The wider adoption of biotechnology will be influenced by the global governance regimes thatare emerging. Flexible enforcement of intellectual property rights and responsive regulatory policiesmay be needed to help Africa benefit from biotechnology. Similarly, partnerships and alliances willhave to be formed between those with resources and those with the technologies if the poor have tobenefit.

Dr. Konde regretted that at a time when some countries are suffering from “global obesity”,Africa is suffering from malnutrition. Those in developed countries and large cities in poor countriesmay afford to be sentimental about food but the majority of Africans just need food, he stressed.Padmashree Gehl Sampath:

21


MASERU

LESOTHO

AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR FOOD SECURITY

This paper was delivered by Prof. Banji Oyeyinka on behalf of the author, Dr. Padmashree GehlSampath of the United Nations University Institute of Technology. The author analysed the conditionsunder which agricultural biotechnology can help increase food security in Africa, focusing on thepotential impacts of GM technology and transgenic crops. He said biotechnology has advantagesand disadvantages and has complex linkages with bio safety, food safety, intellectual propertyprotection, farmers’ rights, access to genetic resources and benefit sharing.

He said the advantages of biotechnology included increased yields owing to use of herbicidetolerant and insect resistant varieties. It also led to a reduction in the use of fertilizers and pesticideswhile promoting conservation of natural resources. However, biotechnology can also lead toenvironmental damage. Its adoption and use may also be costly to farmers, he said, as users may beled to buy specific types of pesticides and farm equipment. It may also lead to promotion ofmonocultures that lead to a neglect of traditional varieties, the creation of invasive weeds and areduction of biological diversity.

The author pointed out that research into GM technologies is largely governed by the TRIPSAgreement that makes intellectual property protection of such varieties obligatory. He noted, however,that countries could rely on the provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the CartagenaProtocol to enact restrictions that take into account environmental and development dimensions.

There are positive and negative costs and benefits of agricultural biotechnology. The fundamentalquestion, he said, is how Africa can use biotechnology to increase food security and agriculturalcompetitiveness and how such technology can be used to gear up research and the capacity for it onthe continent.

The author stressed that Africa’s real chance of attaining food security lies in the ability toincrease GM varieties that cater to local needs. The GM varieties should focus on nutritional value,resistance to biotic stresses, resistance to insects and tolerance to herbicides. He spoke of the needto invest in “varieties of importance” to Africa, the need to develop local research and capacity andplanning for bio safety laws.

COMMENTS FROM THE PAPER’S DISCUSSANT

Dr. Musa Dube was the discussant for the presentation. He said the paper raised two main pointsthat had already emerged in the conference: The need for governments to support science andtechnology projects and the impact of HIV/Aids on efforts to promote food security on the continent.He was, however, emphatic that biotechnology could contribute to solving the problems. The crucialquestion, he submitted, was whether Africa could join the biotechnology competition. The questioncould be answered in the affirmative or negative, he argued, saying each country needed to weighits options as some were in deep economic trouble.

Dr. Dube suggested the paper needed to make a clear distinction between biotechnology andGMOs. The bottom-line, he argued, was to ensure the products of research reached the commonman.


Prof. Obilana of ICRISAT remarked that most of the examples of food crops cited in the presentationsuch as rice were non-indigenous. This was despite the fact that the continent had a rich variety ofindigenous crops including sorghum and millet. He said Africa needed to exploit its comparativeadvantage to compete with other nations. He added that there had been important food researchnetworks working in Africa that remained unknown in spite of the commendable work they hadcarried out. A millet and sorghum project had come up with exemplary results, and trained 98 PhDfellows between 1988 and 2003.

He noted Lesotho had accepted GMOs as a policy, adding that biotechnology would be the nextdevelopment engine after ICTs.

22


MASERU

LESOTHO

Prof. Melvin Ayogu argued scientists should not be shy about wanting complex and detailedpapers e said the onus is on ATPS to simplify them by packaging them in policy briefs that should beeasy for anyone to read.

A delegate from Ethiopia asked why participants were being given the impression GMOs weregood for Africa while they were rejected in other countries. A Kenyan stressed the need to put thedignity of Africans to the fore even as people were urged to adopt GMOs. She said Africancountries were flooded with GMOs and eat the product of various biotechnologies not because theywanted to but because they are poor.

Dr. Wellington Otieno of Foodlink Resources (Kenya) advised participants to ensure they alwaysunderstood the rules of the game in the campaign for GMOs, saying certain pest controllers wereecology-specific.

Dr. Margaret Karembu of Kenya cautioned delegates to clearly delineate biotechnology fromGMOs, saying the latter was a speck in the wider spectrum of biotechnology. There are otherprobably more important areas, including tissue culture, that need to be given consideration, particularlybecause of their extraordinary benefits. She called for the empowerment of communities to reapthe benefits of biotechnology.

A delegate from Swaziland assured participants that there were adequate controls to ensureGMOs were brought as close as possible to other conventional foods, but called for a recognition oflocal resources, observing some of the foods imported into Africa could be grown locally. Therealso was need to dispel the wrong attitudes people had on certain foods. Yellow maize, for example,is rich in nutrients but majority of the people in southern Africa, he said, have a strong distaste for it.

Prof. Banji Oyeyinka conceded that a lot more research needed to be carried out on GMOs.

6. Z. M. NYIIRA

HARNESSING INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES FORIMPROVED AGRICULTURAL PERFORMANCE IN AFRICA

The presenter, Dr Zerubabel M. Nyiira of the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology,traced the development of the ICT sector in Africa and focused on its ability to improve agriculture.ICTs, he said, could improve agriculture by improving training and education, integrating informationand communication technologies in extension programmes, addressing food security problems andsupporting marketing of agricultural commodities. They could also be used to address agriculturalmeteorology, and to engender networking of agricultural communities.

The presenter also discussed the impact of ICTs in agriculture and cited a number of successfulexperiences in their application. These include the opening of telecentres, CD Rom for developmentof agricultural production and skills among rural women, electronic delivery of agricultural informationfor rural communities and economic empowerment of women farmers. Other successful experienceswere a special programme seeking agricultural markets and sustainable use of natural resources infood production.

DISCUSSION OF THE PRESENTATION

The paper’s discussant was Prof. Melvin Ayogu who commended the presenter for creatingawareness that would enable participants to interrogate the benefits of ICTs. He also praised thepresentation for demonstrating the need to go further and research into the subject. But he warnedthere always was a tendency to “oversell” ICTs, thus making it appear as if ICTs were panacea tothe problems that beleaguer Africa. There also was the tendency to view ICTs as the absolutecynosure for development on the continent. Anyone interested in productivity and development inAfrica, he contended, would want to know how agricultural yield was measured and, therefore, how

23


MASERU

LESOTHO

ICTs would be useful in the computation and analysis of that output. He stressed that it is importantto, in the long run, see the trade-off, precipitated by adoption of ICTs.

Prof Ayogu also called for a proper delineation of IT and ICT, observing that the former in therealm of information and the latter in communication. Such delineation would clarify issues anddispel the thinking that IT and ICTs were one and the same thing.

The discussant also cautioned on sourcing, packaging and dissemination of information, sayingthe commodity had a “brittleness” that made it extremely perishable, thus quickly losing its importance.That quality of information had impacts on intellectual property rights, he argued. He wonderedwhat incentives there were for “created” information and linked this to Africa’s worry about lackof rain when such countries as Israel that experienced more severe weather conditions were notworried.

Prof Ayogu said the methods of transfer of technology should be given serious consideration andgave the example of information cafes that have been opened in many parts of Africa whose valueto the farmer he doubted. “What value are such cafes to the farmer? Could the farmer, in fact, belosing? “

He further raised the need to authenticate information obtained from the Internet, arguing suchinformation was not really free.


A delegate proposed that the impact of the projects cited in the presentation be assessed regularly.It was suggested that ATPS facilitates documentation on the projects. A Nigerian delegate wonderedhow rural communities would benefit from ICTs considering the high rate of illiteracy. A delegatefrom Mozambique cautioned against a top-bottom approach while dealing with farmers. And adelegate from Lesotho stressed the importance of focus and specialization in particular commodities.

Denmark, Ireland and Finland, he said, had specialized on unique commodities and were doingextremely well. He also spoke of the need to enforce controls in production work in order to minimizepest risks, among others. Another delegate from Lesotho complained that those who create ICTsare in the US from where they form companies to replicate their products in Africa.

Dr. Ogbu cautioned delegates to view ICTs and biotechnology as a means to an end. Of paramountimportance is identifying information relevant to solving Africa’s problems. He stressed the need toexploit the African experience and build on what others do not know. Africa needed to make atransition but it is critical to understand the background for it, he stressed.

7. ROSE KINGAMKONO AND J. STEPHEN

GENDER DIMENSIONS OF THE CURRENT AGRICULTURAL PERFORMANCE INAFRICA

The paper by Dr. Rose R. Kingamkono and Dr. J. Stephen was delivered by Ms. Bitrina Diyamettof the Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology.

The authors said the productive and reproductive role of women makes them vulnerable tomalnutrition, putting them in persistently poor health. Female illiteracy and political, psychologicaland socio-economic dis-empowerment and denial of fundamental human rights are barriers to qualitylife with a negative socio-economic development not only of the women themselves but also theirfamilies.

Considering the enormous cost of gender inequalities to the whole family and nation at large,they argued, it is imperative that deliberate efforts should be taken to reduce them if not eliminatethem completely. Such a move in Africa will go a long way in increasing agricultural productivity.Integration of gender in policies and making development resources available to women promisesgreat returns to families and entire economies.

24


MASERU

LESOTHO

Gaps in involvement of all segments of African societies in agricultural production need to beaddressed holistically if the agricultural sector is to grow and solve problems of food insecurity. Menand women have to work in partnership in political, socio-economic developmental projects at alllevels. Functional nutrition and other information systems at all levels have to be established orstrengthened. Partnership between the public sector, NGOs, private sector and UN agencies has tobe strengthened.

If the vision for the 21st century is to succeed, it needs to draw on the massive insights, experiences,understandings and commitments of those committed to improved nutrition, gender equity and povertyalleviation. Challenges have to be clearly identified and opportunities fully exploited. A new enthusiasmis needed, the authors stressed.

Accelerated public investments are needed to facilitate the attainment of food self-sufficiencyand an increase in the levels of food security must be featured in the national and regional priorities.The investments need to be supported by an enabling policy environment. This includes trade, macroand micro sectoral policies that do not discriminate against agriculture but provides incentives forproductivity increases in food and agricultural production. These policies should also provideappropriate incentives for sustainable management of natural resources.

Policies should be designed as a function of particular conditions prevailing in Africa and takinginto account its particular scientific and technological capabilities. Purposive measure could also beconsidered like initially elevating one segment of society thought to be disadvantageous to where theother segment is and then taking them both wholly.


Ms. Charlotte Wonani, a lecturer at the Department of Development Studies of the University ofZambia and ATPS Zambia National Co-ordinator, was the discussant. She said small-scale farmerswere generally marginalized in areas where there was large-scale farming. Institutional failure alsoaffected agricultural output, she said, arguing there were institutions in support of male farmers butwere greatly wanting. The challenge, Ms. Wonani said, was to reposition women in the agriculturalsector and view them as decision and policy makers not as labourers and mere farm workers.

Further, she said women in agriculture were either infected or affected by HIV/Aids and thatloss through the disease was affecting development in Africa. Technology needed to be looked atholistically with a view to developing labour-saving technologies that support women. Women shouldalso be enlightened on their rights and support service provided to facilitate their work.


A delegate contended that women are different from men and they also communicate differently.Unless this is appreciated, he said, problems in solving food security would linger on. In addition, hesaid, women are workers, labourers and men are the decision makers, he stressed, arguing thatrunning away from the fact would complicate matters.

Another delegate argued the comments being made on gender and women’s role in agricultureare “static” and that they had been discussed exhaustively in the 1980s.

Dr. Ogbu clarified how gender issues had evolved since the 1970s. At the beginning, attemptswere made to address “women in development”, later “women and development”, and more recently,“gender and development”. Each had an accompanying methodological dimension.

It was also pointed out that steps had been taken in some countries to enable women to make amark in agriculture. In Nigeria, for example, some programmes enabled women to obtain credit.The challenge, it was pointed out, was to deepen democracy in Africa, integrating women’s concern.Africa, it was pointed out, must re-examine itself to find out why it is poor in spite of its enormousresources.

A speaker insisted delegates must distinguish between the elite woman and “the woman whosuffers”.

25


MASERU

LESOTHO

8. WELLINGTON A. OTIENO AND ADA MWANGOLA

WHY AFRICA HAS FALLEN SHORT OF BUILDING DYNAMIC AGRO-PROCESSINGCAPABILITIES: CONSTRAINTS, OPTIONS AND PROSPECTS

The paper was prepared by Dr. Wellington A. Otieno of Foodlink Resources Institute and Ms. AdaMwangola of Oxfam (Kenya). The paper examined the objectives of food processing in agriculture-led development strategy, the performance of the agro-processing sub sector and the factorsconstraining agro-processing industries in Africa. Such factors include inadequate agricultural,industrial and economic policy; weak integration of agriculture, manufacturing and trade; mistakesin the setting up of enterprises; technological inadequacies and poor demand stimulation.

They also include inability to adapt to sophistication of international market; lack of integration oflarge and small enterprise; poor infrastructure; debt service burden and import dependency of industry.The presenter also highlighted the strategic policy directions for the future, arguing that to meet thechallenges of agro-processing, clear mechanisms should be set up focusing on supply of raw materials,technology, product diversification and markets.

He said the bulk of processed food in domestic market is produced by micro enterprises in theinformal sector in sub-Saharan Africa but lamented the neglect of the sector by governments.


Prof. Banji Oyeyinka led the discussion of the presentation. He said the traditional sector is innovationdriven, knowledge and technology based. The sector is the fastest growing, he said, adding itcarried the wrong tag as it was often revolutionized, especially in the developed world. Institutionalsupport in Africa is weak, he said, giving the example of a general lack of legislation on biotechnologyin most countries.

Some institutions have also become inappropriate with changing times, he said, while othershave been destroyed by certain forces, particularly the structural adjustment programmes.


Governance must be given greater consideration as it hampers development on the continent, it wasargued. Corruption must be expunged from all sectors if constraints to development are to beended. It was pointed out that as a consequence of globalization, uprooted industries weremushrooming in Africa to exploit the liberalized environment without supporting local developmentefforts and products.

Majority of them import raw materials from outside even when such products are availablelocally. It was recommended that agro-processing policy in Africa be community based. A delegatetook issue with African intellectuals and experts, saying they tended to relish making recommendationsand sit back expecting change to automatically occur. Another said Africans tended to live on hopethat all would be well without taking the necessary measures to correct the situation. There were noplans to deal with possible droughts or poor harvests, for example.

It was also argued that Africa had many options but needed to consider its comparative advantages.University education in Africa was faulted for being promotion based. There was little, if any,demand driven research at African universities and there was apparently no one responsible for theresearch outputs of those institutions. It was proposed that networks encourage governments tostrengthen links between industries and universities. Delegates agreed agro-processing is key toAfrica’s food security but stressed that governance is fundamental. Many industries in Africa hadcollapsed because of corruption. A delegate said subsidies make it difficult for agro-industries tothrive.

26


MASERU

LESOTHO

9. JULIUS H. MANGISONI

MARKETS, INSTITUTIONS AND AGRICULTURAL PERFORMANCE IN AFRICA

This paper was delivered by Dr. Julius Mangisoni of the Rural Development Department at theUniversity of Malawi. The paper attempted to show the linkage among markets, institutions andagricultural performance in Africa. It demonstrated that African farmers face problems of transactioncosts, missing markets, agricultural risk, and institutional constraints that limit the benefits theyrealize from agricultural production.

Further, due to the limited success of the structural adjustment programmes, the paperrecommended that Africans should be in charge of their own development programmes. In suchprogrammes, much emphasis should be placed on market development to address the problem oflimited market access.

The presenter observed that poverty is a serious problem in Africa leading to food insecurity andpoor nutrition. At the same time, smallholder farmers have limited access to markets for their variousagricultural products due to transaction costs, poor infrastructure, agricultural risk, missing marketsand institutional constraints. Some of the problems such as missing markets have been aggravatedby the withdrawal of marketing boards from remote areas, a move necessitated by marketliberalization. Since the structural adjustment programmes have not succeeded in Africa, the presenterrecommended that the direction taken by NEPAD to let Africans take the lead in designing theirown programmes be supported. He further recommended that regional initiatives such as SADC,COMESA and ECOWAS should launch a campaign to persuade Africans to substitute Africanproducts for foreign products.

For market development, he said, collective action among farmers, agro-processing to add value,development of grades and standards, infrastructure development, and market information shouldbe top priority in every African county.


The discussion was led by Prof. C. Madukwe who called for serious consideration of cultural risks,saying they had tremendous impact on policy. He said the main challenge was to examine institutionswhose weakness was attributable to poverty on the continent.

The discussant said the subsystems in agriculture were not well understood, adding that researchmust be based on farmers’ problems if any meaningful progress was to be achieved.


It was noted there is need to differentiate between food poverty and income poverty. A delegateunderscored the importance of collective action, saying cooperatives could serve a critical role inaddressing farmers’ problems were it not for the governance problems that beleaguer them.

Another delegate proposed the involvement of the private sector in addressing issues of agriculturalperformance. It also was suggested that the pricing of commodities be stabilized and that governmentsidentify crops that should be marketed by boards and those that should be marketed by the privatesector.

27


MASERU

LESOTHO

10. SHELLEMIA O. KEYA

RESEARCH PRIORITY AREAS FOR AFRICA TO ATTAIN SUSTAINABLE FOOD SECURITY

Prof. S. O. Keya, formerly Executive Secretary TAC/iSC of the CGIAR, FAO, Rome, deliveredthe presentation. He examined the challenges of sustainable agriculture production that translateinto lack of technological change, lack of produce incentives, poor infrastructure and neglect ofsmall-scale farmers by agriculture research. He said priority areas for research are driven by foodsecurity, export earnings, cash income, raw materials for industry, rural employment, sustainabilityconcerns and poverty reduction.

The presenter said research priorities for the continent are often donor-driven. The research isalso generally short-term, resulting in priority distortion. In addition, such priorities have no referenceto each other. He cited national priorities such as tea and coffee research in Kenya but argued thedevelopment of agricultural sector in Africa was severely hampered by the slow rate of appropriatetechnology generation, transfer and adoption by farmers.

At the sub-regional level, he said ASARECA had identified five high priority areas – improvingthe genetic material to increasing productivity, increasing productivity of livestock production systems,adding value to agricultural produce through post-harvest management, resource management,enhancing efficiency of support institutions, and strengthening of ICT. Other examples of the sub-regional level include tobacco and sugar research in Zimbabwe, while at the regional level FARAhad developed a vision of African Agricultural Research and Development.

He said policy research is needed to guide decision makers on the necessary incentives topromote technology adoption and productivity. There is also need to improve cash crop productionand competitiveness, to strengthen peri-urban agricultural systems, to improve grain legumesprogramme, and develop sustainable irrigated agriculture in the Sahel. There is also need to improvebanana and plantain production for food and income, root and tuber crops for food and for povertyalleviation and integrated cereal production systems for increased food security.

The speaker also emphasized the need to improve management of natural resources andproduction systems, conservation and sustainable utilisation of plant and animal genetic resources,improvement of livestock research for food and income, and the strengthening of ICT.

At the international level, the speaker said CGIAR priorities are guided by the Vision andStrategy adopted in 2000 setting out seven broad guidelines for strategic planning – three of whichare poverty and hunger reduction, a regional approach to research planning and implementation, andthe forging of partnerships with the private sector and universities.

At the level of the African Union, he said, governments should strengthen agricultural researchthrough technology transfer, promotion of centres of excellence, appropriate institutional reforms,and adoption of new approaches including impact assessment. Prof. Keya also discussed recentdevelopments influencing African research priorities. These include Nepad’s efforts in promotion ofICT and agriculture to meet the Millennium Development Goals by 2015 and FAO’s Study onProducts.

RESEARCH PRIORITIES

Prof. Keya identified various research priorities for the continent as follows:

Priorities at Sub-Regional Level by ASARECA• Improving genetic material.• Increasing the productivity of livestock production systems.• Adding value to agricultural produce through post-harvest processing, storage, and quality

control.• Promoting soil fertility, water management and conservation• Enhancing efficiency of institutions supporting agricultural production systems.• Strengthening ICT.

28


MASERU

LESOTHO

Priorities at Sub-Regional Level CORAF/WECARD• Promoting agricultural policy.• Improving cash crop production and competitiveness.• Strengthening peri-urban agricultural systems.• Grain legume improvement programme.• Development of sustainable irrigated agriculture in the Sahel.• Banana and plantain production for food and income.• Root and Tuber crops for food security and poverty alleviation.• Integrated cereal production systems for increased food security.• Management of natural resources and production systems.• Conservation and sustainable utilization of plant and animal genetic resources.• Livestock research for improved food security and income generation.• Strengthening ICT

SACCAR’S for Strategic Areas• Improved coordination and integration of regional research and training.• Partnership in agricultural research and training.• Improved information and communication system in support of research.• Review of institutional framework.

CGISR Priority Formulation 2003Findings of the Africa Panel

Germplasm Collection, Conservation, and Characterization1. Ex-situ Conservation

• Storage protocols for neglected and endangered species.• Conservation of crop wild relatives.• Identification of important “orphan” food crops.• Forage grasses and forage legumes.• Annual and perennial crops for marginal environment.• Pharmaceutical crops.

2 In-situ Conservation• Conservation of wild relatives.• Crops systems for marginal environment• Valuation of in situ and on-farm conservation.

3 Livestock• Investigation of the genetics of resistance to diseases.

4 Forestry• Community forest management in the semi-arid areas.

6 Microbes and insects• Characterization of, and enhanced access to, genetic resources.

8 Other• Study of gene flows.

Germplasm Improvement

Cereals• Screening of traditional O. glaberrima.• Comparative genetics of host plant.

Roots and tubers• Improve resistance to aflatoxin.• Develop clean and efficient germplasm.

29


MASERU

LESOTHO

High value and cash crops• Improve resistance to aflatoxin.

Livestock• The genetics of indigenous livestock breeds.

Other• Use of wild species and other exotic genetics resources.ress• Use of insect and insect pathogens as sources of biopesticides.• Investigation of soil and root health diseases.

A biotic stress• Drought: comparative genetics of drought tolerance.

Sustainable Production Systems and Natural Resources Management• Crop production systems• Livestock production systems• Agroforestry systems• Urban and peri-urban systems

Policy and Socio-Economic Research• Markets.• Institutions in support.• Post-harvest.• Policy and institutions.• Rural livelihood.• Determinants of poverty.• Research impact assessment.• Outreach to policymakers.

Strengthening NARS and Other Rural Institutions• Training and capacity for NARS• Empowerment of farmers, their organizations, and communities• Public-private partnerships• South-south collaboration• Rural and AKIS• Other, for example financial sustainability in NARS.

Cross-Cutting Themes• Information platforms• Impact assessment


The discussant was Dr. Alex Tindimubona who said the paper had listed far too many priorities, thusmaking it difficult to see what was the priority. “When everything is a priority, then nothing is apriority,” he said. Dr. Tindimubona said Africa must set its own priorities. He recalled a meeting inAfrica at which the extermination of “weeds” which happened to be traditional food for Africanswas discussed by foreigners. “Our food was targeted for chemical and biological warfare,” he said,calling on Africa to have donors from their own countries and governments to set agenda for thecontinent. The discussant proposed a positive, forward-looking approach that does not heckle Africaon how it has failed, but that which seeks opportunities and options for the continent to be better.

He said ATPS should take up the challenge and lead the way. Africa’s agenda, he added, must bebased on “strategic thrusts” such as the African Green Revolution, Nepad and its CAADP and theMillennium Development Goals. He said ATPS had the comparative advantage to add value, arguingthe network had gone “the farthest” in engaging policy-makers through parliamentary fora.

30


MASERU

LESOTHO


A delegate contended that for Africa to launch into biotechnology, it must start with gnome contiguitymaps. It also was suggested that governments in Africa must emerge as new donors for effectiveprogress. A delegate said Africa hardly understood itself, the farmer and its poverty. It also wasclaimed the conference was discussing science and technology in “very abstract” terms. “We arenot showing the framework in which things should happen,” a speaker lamented.

31


MASERU

LESOTHO

5.0 Review of Conference

Dr. Osita Ogbu invited Mr. Paul Dufour of IDRC to give his impressions of the first two days of theconference. Mr. Dufour said three things had caught his attention at the conference:

• ATPS’ initiative in promotion of science and technology policy and the network’s commitmentto ensuring decision-makers and researchers in Africa understand each other.

• ATPS’ thrust in influencing the development agenda on the continent particularly throughdissemination of ideas.

• The need for continued support of science and technology policy initiatives spearheaded byATPS because of their centrality to the development process.

Mr. Dufour recalled the science and technology policy dialogue forum organized in June forParliamentarians in Lesotho, saying that was a major step forward in the network’s efforts toaugment development in Africa. He said his work in Ottawa involved the development of newtechnologies, adding IDRC had already supported gnomics research in various countries.

Giving her impressions on the conference, Prof. Olembo regretted that despite numerousdiscussions and studies, Africa was growing more hungry. “Where’s the missing link?” she asked,observing that other continents had food security and were developing. She proposed a more effectivesystem of information dissemination to alleviate the problems the continent faced.

“We have all along been prioritising. It is now time to implement,” she said. Dr. Alex Tindimubonadelivered a goodwill message from UNECA, saying his organization placed great value to whatATPS was doing. He said UNECA was expert and process driven and that it was keen to learnfrom ATPS. “Our organisation deals in sustainable development, and food security is key to whatwe do. So we share experiences,” he declared. UNECA was in the process of developing the ideaof the African Green Revolution, he said, and called on ATPS to be a partner. He said ATPS’ leadingrole in articulating the African perspective was demonstrated by the number of publications oncontinental issues to its credit. Dr. Tindimubona said UNECA would sponsor five people attendingthe Lesotho conference to the Kampala Green Revolution meeting.

THE WORKSHOP

The third and fourth days were devoted to a review of research proposals submitted to ATPS forpossible funding. The proposals fell into one of three groups. Group A - Agricultural TechnologyPolicy; Group B – Information and Communication Technology Policy; and Group C – TechnologyTransfer, Trade and Industry, IPRS, Gender and SME Technology Policy Issues. The followingresearch proposals were submitted for review.

32


MASERU

LESOTHO

GROUP A: AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY POLICY

1. “The policy of reducing the importation of rice: enhancing national capacity for rice self-sufficiency in Ghana” by Paul Kofi, A. Dartey and D. Awunyo

2. “The influence of modern technologies on indigenous knowledge in farming systems ofMorogoro District, Tanzania” by Adolf F. Makauki and Josephat Itika

3. “Assessing the status of food biotechnology in Swaziland and Nigeria” by F .M Badejoand L.O. Sanni

4. “Biotechnology systems of innovation: A study of institutions and policies in Cameroon” byViolet Bumah and Alfred Ngwa

5. “Socio-economic effects of improved post-harvest technologies in maize production inKaprochwa District of Uganda” by Paul Mwebaze and Edward Kato

6. “Selecting appropriate value adding technologies for diversifying utilization of tissue-culturederived bananas in East Africa” by Margaret Karembu, S. Wakhusana and J. Namaganda

7. “The impact of biogas technology in Lesotho: Facts and challenges” by Elliot Lefa Thamae,Muso Raliselo and TS’ehlo Moshe

8. “Small-scale irrigation schemes in Swaziland and their role in poverty alleviation: Implicationsfor policy formulation” by Absalom Manyatsi and Patrick Khumalo

9. “Effects of institutional and policy reforms in Uganda’s forest sector on the saw millingtechnology and opportunities for improvement” by Joseph Obura and Paul Mugambi

10. Biotechnological innovations in soil fertility management for women farmers: the key toimproving small-holder agriculture in Ghana” by S. Agyenim Boateng, S. Boadi and J.Haleegoah

11. “Towards a national strategy for enhancing the adoption of improved varieties of maize forfood security in Ghana” by Christopher Kwame Ayim

12. “Technology and marketing problems of small scale dairy enterprises in Kenya” by GidraphNduati and Winifred Karugu

13. “A study of the effectiveness of farm technologies delivery systems on small scale farmingin South-West Nigeria” by Abel Babalola Ogunwale

GROUP B: INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY POLICY

1. “The Information and Communication (ICT) sector in Nigeria: A case study of the computerhardware industry sub-sector” by O. A. Bamiro, B. A. Durojaiye, and A. I. Onueme

2. “A study of the effect of computerization on the performance of government institutions inSierra Leone” by Abu Kamara

3. “Social dimensions of information technology (IT) in Kenya: With reference to policyimplications on the social structure” by Mumbi Machera

4. “Investigation of Lesotho’s ICT readiness and formulation of ICT policy framework” byTeferi Kebede and Ntsibane Ntlatlapa

5. “What kind of technology is needed for effective teaching and learning in the primaryschools of Lesotho” by Sophia Majara

6. “A study of the effects of electronic anking on the performance of selected commercialbanks in Sierra Leone” by Sarah F. Bendu

7. “Information and communication technologies (ICTs) in Cameroon: Changes and prospectsfor the future” by John Suh Che

8. “The technological capabilities of the banking industry in Nigeria: Implications for learningand training” by Nnenna J. Enwere

9. “Has the new and emerging information technology improved efficiency in the bankingsector in Ethiopia?” by Tassew Belachew and Abdurahman Ame

10. “Determination of the support required to promote, adopt and apply ICTs in Swaziland:Implications for policy formulation” by M. D. Dlamini and Musa A. Dube

33


MASERU

LESOTHO

11. “Effects of telecenters on agricultural technology transfer in Uganda” by James Kakoozaand Dave Khayangayanga

12. “A study on ICT for Rural development in Ethiopia” by Berhanu Denu13. “E-Government in Mozambique: A study of policy, procedures, regulations and norms for its

successful implementation” by Augusto F. Nunes and Zauria Saifodine

GROUP C: TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER, TRADE & INDUSTRY, IPRS, GENDER AND SMETECHNOLOGY POLICY ISSUES

1. “Assessment of technological capabilities in the industrial small and medium scale enterprisessector in Zambia” by William Mbuta and William Musonda

2. “Trade liberalization and production in Uganda: A case of manufacturing sector” byNichodemus Rudaheranwa and Ashie Mukungu

3. “Technology accumulation and development in small and medium enterprises (SMEs): Acase study of agro-allied sub-sector of Nigeria’s economy by D. A. Okongwu

4. “Local retirements for effective technology transer and diffusion in Zambia: Options,constraints and prospects” by Lipalile Mufana and Mutombo Namuunda

5. “The leather industry of Ethiopia: An investigation of supply constraints and firms technologicalcapabilities” by Abreham Gebeyenu and Dejene Aredo

6. “Are there significant technology and productivity spill-overs from multi-national corporationsin sub-Saharan Africa? A cross-country study of Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia andZimbabwe” by Samuel Bwalya and Peter Sampa

7. “The technology factor in solid waste management in Nigeria” by A. J. Kamuyi8. “Utilization of the patent system by R&D institutions in Tanzania” by Georges Shemdoe9. “Promoting female participation in Science and Technology for development and poverty

alleviation in Cameroon” by John W. Forje10. “Evaluation of technology and policy framework for the promotion of small and medium scale

Kenyan leather goods manufacturing” by B. O. F. Odongo11. “A study of licensing and foreign technology implications for technology transfer in industries

in Nigeria” by E. O. Essien and K. Hassan12. “Foreign direct investment (FDI), technology transfer and poverty reduction in Botswana”

by Donatilla Kaino13. “Technology requirements of metal working micro-and small enterprises in Zimbabwe” by

Charles Halimana

34


MASERU

LESOTHO

6.0 Research Methodology and Training

INTRODUCTION TO TECHNOLOGY POLICY

This session was conducted by Dr. Mohamed Khalil. He stressed the centrality of technology invirtually everything people did, showing that science belonged to the realm of “why?” while technologybelonged to that of “how”. Failure by African governments to see science and technology as theengine of development had led to economic stagnation, he said. Developed countries placed engineersat the pedestal of development programmes while African governments were still stuck with classicaleconomists in ministries that made key decisions affecting development.

The absence of a focused and independent science and technology policy had led to hilariousfailure in most national projects across the continent, Dr. Khalil said, and cited Chinese and Kenyanscience and technology project experiences to elaborate his point. In 1986, China entered a contractwith GEC Alsthorn of France to have the company:

• Manufacture four 300 mw turbine generator units• Transfer the design technology to local Chinese corporations• Deliver documentation and drawings of the project to the Chinese• Gradually increase domestic content in the co-production of heavy power

generating equipment

China, he said, had set up the necessary institutional structures for the work. The Ministry of Energywas charged with formulation of policy, planning and implementation of the project while the ChinaNational Technical Import Corporation (CNTIC) was charged with the regulation and screening ofcapital equipment flows. The China International Water and Electric Corporation (CWE) was chargedwith planning, construction and management of the power sector and the Beijing Heavy ElectricalMachinery Works (BZD) with the manufacture of turbo generators. China ensured the local contentratio was increased as the project progressed and monitored the development closely, ensuringChinese interests were always at the fore. The country also placed a high premium on training, thusmaking sure local personnel gained knowledge on how to manufacture the 300-mw turbo generators.

In contrast, Dr Khalil said, Kenya in 1979 signed an agreement with a Canadian counterpart forinstallation of a 220KV transmission line between Kamburu in Central Province and Mombasa inCoast Province. In the case of Kenya, Canada would provide consulting and technical engineersbesides providing other services for the project. The Canadian content, not Kenyan, was to bemaximized during implementation of the project, and the Canadian executing agency ACRES wouldensure maximum opportunity went to Canadian firms when bids were called.

Virtually all decision making and implementation relating to the project was to be done by ACRESincluding evaluation, procurement, co-ordination and tendering. The Kenya Power and LightingCompany’s involvement was peripheral and KPLC’s capacity was hardly used. The lesson to bedrawn from the Kenyan case is that the country had no technological agenda and that the countryhad ceded overwhelming control of a parastatal to foreigners.

35


MASERU

LESOTHO

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ISSUES

The session was conducted by Prof. Banji Oyeyinka who clearly outlined the steps in putting togethera research proposal. He underscored the importance of formulating the research question sayingsuch a question should address pertinent problems in Africa. The research question should alsocapture the major problem of the study. Some of the questions to ask when formulating the researchquestion include: What problems am I supposed to find solutions to? How is this important for policydevelopment? The Speaker also emphasized the need to formulate a clear hypothesis and to haveclarity on the broad and specific objectives. Literature review is also critical and must examine whathas to be done in the area of study, look at what arguments have been advanced and seek tocontribute new knowledge into the debate. The methods of research and the instruments to be usedshould also be carefully worked out. A budget and complementary activities should also be clearlyspelt out.

THE CHALLENGES OF PUBLISHING RESEARCH: TOWARD BETTER PRESENTATION OF PAPERS

The improved writing and packaging skills session was conducted by Mr. Magayu K. Magayu, alecturer in journalism at the University of Nairobi. The paper was aimed at pointing out the morecommon mistakes made by researchers when writing research outputs for publication. It also discussedthe problems relating to presentation of such papers. The problems discussed ranged from spellingto punctuation, from figures to heads, from tables to expressions and grammar.

The presenter emphasized that the role of an editor is to make the copy digestible to the readers.He said it was the responsibility of the writer to ensure work intended for publication was as complete,as clean and as thorough as possible. The editor may help improve on the work but there is a limit asto how far he can go. “The onus is on the writer to ensure copy for publication is clean,” he said.

UNESCO PRESENTATION ON TECHNOLOGY AND POVERTY ERADICATION

The Unesco presentation titled “Technology and Poverty Eradication” (TAPE) was prepared by DrAdalgot Komba of the University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; Mr Mohamed Jalloh of the Ministryof Education, Science and Technology, Sierra Leone; and the presenter, Dr Peggy Oti-Boateng, theDirector of the Technology Consultancy Centre, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science andTechnology Kumasi, Ghana. The paper detailed the outcomes of two regional workshops organizedby Unesco with the aim of identifying policies, strategies and actions that enable promotion oftechnology for poverty reduction. The regional meeting held in Kumasi, Ghana, on February 21-22sought to benefit from the experiences of technology policy researchers by:

• Sharing their experiences in the use of science and technology for poverty reduction.• Identifying science and technology related gaps in poverty reduction strategies developed

by various African countries.• Collating ideas on the use of science and technology for poverty reduction in Africa.• Discussing with development partners the financing of science and technology activities

for poverty reduction.

THE THEMATIC AREAS GUIDING THE KUMASI WORKSHOP WERE:• Knowledge networks for poverty reduction.• Technology systems for poverty reduction.• Technological dimensions of poverty reduction strategies in Africa.• Increasing contribution of science and technology in poverty reduction strategies in

Africa.The objectives of the Arusha workshop, held on September 9-11, 2003 were to:

• Tease out the lessons learnt, development challenges and good practices from Africaand around the world where technologies have been successfully promoted for enterprisedevelopment.

36


MASERU

LESOTHO

• Identify policy issues and strategies for technology diffusion to determine how microfinance institutions could support acquisition by clients and promote partnerships betweenthe developers and the users of technology.

The thematic areas for the workshop were:• Global and regional experiences in small-scale technology development for poverty

reduction.• Case studies of technologies that work for the poor.• Policy issues in technology development and diffusion.• Financing and policy issues.

The workshops were organized in the backdrop of the recognition that appropriate technology is themain instrument in poverty reduction among the poor as it empowers them by expanding choices intheir lives. It also has become increasingly clear that technology can increase production and incomeand allow growth of an enterprise while introduction of improved technologies into micro-financeschemes can transform them from subsistence to micro-enterprises. There is also the recognitionthat the role of technology has not been fully appreciated and technologies that have been developedhave not been successfully transferred. It is also recognized there are problems of technologytransfer, diffusion and adoption. In addition most poverty reduction strategic plans have technologyas a cross-cutting issue.

The Lesotho workshop was informed that technologies for poverty reduction must add value, begender friendly and have capacity to improve people’s lives. They must involve all stakeholders, bedemand-driven and build upon traditional and indigenous knowledge. Technology transfer mechanismsand centres should be in place for effective adoption and provision of credit facilities to promotesuch transfer. The need to create linkages for technology transfer and innovation was also broughtout clearly as was the need for awareness creation, advocacy and training Governments wereviewed as key in addressing the missing links but the private sector was singled out as critical to thedevelopment of technologies beneficial to the poor. The paper recommended strengthening ofinstitutions that carry out research, particularly universities, and the promotion of networking withsuch development partners as Unesco, ATPS and the World Bank.


Prof. Norah Olembo, the Chairman of ATPS, said formation of communication linkages would helpsolve Africa’s problems relating to science and technology. Time to act is now, she said, and Africangovernments must be lobbied to understand the importance of science and technology. She called onthe “top cream” of scientists on the continent to lead in agitating African governments to embracescience and technology. ATPS was requested to strategize on how this would be carried out. It wasproposed that a strategy paper be prepared detailing the course of action.

Prof. Matsela of Lesotho welcomed the formulation of a strategy paper but cautioned on thedifficulty of scientific language. He said it was important to reach people at the grassroots andcalled for a translation of the strategy document to ensure it was understood by everyone.

A delegate said there was a tendency to approach things the wrong way. The first step, he said,should be transfer of already existing technologies and an assessment of Africa’s approach toscience and technology. There’s need to press governments on the continent to create enablingenvironments for science and technology development, he said.

Mr. Benson Zwizwai of Zimbabwe faulted Africa’s placement of too much premium to finance.He observed that even projects that were well funded had problems. Drawing from the experienceof a Zimbabwean project, he said, its philosophy was to bring all involved together, to ensure theynetworked and supported each other particularly in areas such as marketing and training.

37


MASERU

LESOTHO

Another delegate called for the involvement of herbal practitioners, saying traditional healers hadan important contribution to make in the field of science and technology as well as in biotechnology.It also was suggested that Africa would begin to develop only after it had started exporting technology.

Prof. Banji faulted the presentation, saying it was fraught with contradictions.Mr. Squire of Sierra Leone described technology as something one uses to do one’s work better,

saying what Africa needed was technology it could use. Prof. Bamiro of Nigeria while acknowledgingstrategic plans are difficult to formulate said such plans would be useful because they would enableAfrica to re-examine its own environment and therefore allow those involved to see the“interconnectedness” of the science and technology issues.

Nnenna J. Enwere of Nigeria was more positive. Africa needed no excuse to remain poor, thedelegate said, and challenged ATPS to send scientists to the grassroots where training would startand put the continent on the development rail.

Another speaker called for the “well-formulated” document that must be sent to all heads ofstate, to Nepad, UNESCO and UN detailing Africa’s path to science and technology development.However, another delegate said their greatest encumbrance to science and technology adoption inAfrica is infrastructure. “Either there are no roads, water or electricity,” he said. “So how can wedo what we want to do?” he posed. “We need to be practical in approach.”

Part of the problem in Africa, one delegate said, was that African governments relied heavily ontechnocrats who advise wrongly. A way should be found to ensure governments are given correctadvice.

A speaker proposed that academics go into areas that did not require government permission,arguing that working with the authorities might take 10 – 15 years before certain recommendationsare implemented.

On transfer and access to credit, a delegate proposed the strengthening of ministries of informationto cover rural areas with personnel knowledgeable in issues of science and technology. Further, hecalled for granting of affordable loans as commercial banks charged high interest rates.

Dr. Osita Ogbu called for an African perspective in the presentations. Prof. Olembo supportedthe putting together of a strategy document to be sent to relevant organizations, including Nepad andthe African Union, showing the way forward for science and technology in Africa.

38


MASERU

LESOTHO

7.0 Presentation of the ATPS Strategic Plan

Prof. Melvin Ayogu presented the ATPS strategic plan, the fifth phase of the network’s programme.He said people had begun to see the linkages between use of knowledge and ICTs in the economy.

Dr. Ogbu, ATPS Executive Director, said the network had already launched into phase five butobserved that the organization had not developed a strategic plan before. Those in the network, hesaid, were already converted and their duty was to advocate for science and technology. A reviewof the network had been conducted, he said, and noted the proposed project was fairly ambitious. Itwould raise the organization’s budget from $1.5 million to $2.5 million in a year. As a result, hepointed out, money would have to be raised from all possible sources, particularly at the local level.He called on national chapters to rededicate their efforts to raise money to support the network’sactivities from their own countries.


The following suggestions were made by members following presentation of the ATPS strategicplan.

1. That efforts be made to raise money at the national level to support the network.2. That ATPS embark on zero-budgeting.3. That friendly governments be approached to support the network’s activities. Nigeria was

cited as one country that had offered support to the organization in the past.4. That solvency is key to the network’s success and must, therefore, be guaranteed.5. That industry be brought on board to help ameliorate some of the financial problems the

network was experiencing.6. That ATPS considers running consultancies for governments using its rich repertoire of

scientists and use a percentage of the proceeds to support its work.7. That the nurturing of entrepreneurial skills be brought out clearly as a task ATPS would

effectively undertake under the curriculum review aspect to enhance the linkage betweenresearch and industry.

8. That legislators and other decision-makers be integrated into ATPS as members in order togive it the necessary support.

9. That ATPS be open to corporate membership in order to enjoy support of public and privateorganizations.

39


MASERU

LESOTHO

8.0 Presentation of ATPS Achievement Awards

Dr. Osita Ogbu, the ATPS Executive Director, said the network had launched the ATPS AchievementAwards that would each year go to the national chapters that emerged as the best in promoting theobjectives of the organization. The winners of the 2003 Awards were as follows:

1. Best Exhibition Award – ATPS Tanzania Chapter2. Outstanding Effort Award – ATPS Ethiopia Chapter3. Outstanding Advocacy for Africa Science Day – ATPS Ghana Chapter4. Best Overall Chapter – ATPS Lesotho Chapter.

9.0 The National Co-ordinators Meeting

The National Co-ordinators Meeting was chaired by Dr. Osita Ogbu, the Executive Director ofATPS. He introduced co-ordinators of newly opened chapters – Mozambique, Burkina Faso, Benin,Mali and Senegal. Namibia and South Africa, who attended the meeting as observers were alsointroduced. The co-ordinators from the new chapters gave brief profiles of themselves. The ExecutiveDirector advised them to take the science and technology policy component seriously to ensurethere were links between researchers and policy makers.

The meeting went through the minutes of the previous co-ordinators’ meeting held in Abuja,Nigeria, on November 15, 2003.

Members expressed the view that there was need for chapters to communicate more amongstthemselves. Dr. Ogbu proposed that national chapters employ e-mail more, arguing it was the easiestmeans of communication.

It was pointed out that grants offered by the networks for research should be used within thestipulated period. Some beneficiaries took too long to complete their research or to account for thegrants, leading to cancellation of subsequent payments.

Co-ordinators sought to be told who had won research awards at the conclusion of the ATPSreview workshops so that they could inform researchers back at home immediately. The ExecutiveDirector cautioned that the issue should be handled carefully as it could lead to serious disappointmentsif grants were not eventually paid out for one reason or the other. He reasoned that the safest waywas to ensure a contract had been signed by ATPS and the researcher.

40


MASERU

LESOTHO

REPORTS FROM THE CHAPTERS

The chapters represented gave an account of their achievements and challenges.

LESOTHO1. The Parliamentarians Round Table was held in June 2003. The meeting should have been

held in January but was postponed owing to the commitments of parliamentarians. TheRound Table was a great success.

2. Peer review of research proposals were carried out. However, there had been delays insubmission of proposals.

3. The chapter intended to mount awareness creation workshops but funding was a stumblingblock.

4. Involvement of government into ATPS activities was a challenge. There also were problemsinvolving NGOs and the private sector.

5. The chapter expressed appreciation for support given by ATPS to a senior journalist totravel to Uganda for a training workshop. The journalist had been sensitised on science andtechnology issues and was now covering them more effectively in the country’s media.

6. Lesotho had formulated a science and technology policy document and the national chapterwanted to enlist support of ATPS in reviewing and implementing it.

UGANDA1. Registration of the national chapter was in progress.2. Priority was being given to establishment of partnerships with, for example, the Curriculum

Development Centre and the Uganda Academy of Sciences.3. The chapter had had meetings with the network on ICTs.4. The chapter had organized a successful Science Revival Day but it was suggested greater

involvement by the government was required.5. The chapter was receiving requests for popularisation of science and technology issues.6. The chapter had held research seminars.7. The chapter had not managed to hold any round tables on policy dialogue.8. The chapter had had no impact on the constitutional review commission as it had not

established an entry point.9. The chapter plans to run essay competitions to promote science and technology.

CAMEROON1. The national chapter is now officially registered.2. The chapter had participated in its country’s University Technology Week.3. Membership had been extended and the register was now complete.4. The chapter was optimistic it would receive funding for its activities.5. Office space had been identified and the chapter would be paying approximately $ 75 per

month in rent.

NIGERIA1. Registration of the chapter had been slow and a lawyer had been contacted to help.2. A Round Table planned for last year had not been held and plans were under way to mount

one by the end of December 2003.3. Africa Science Day had been celebrated and government officials had graced the occasion

thereby making cooperation with them in the realm of science and technology possible.4. Training policy makers and legislators had been conducted and the initiative had received

good media coverage.5. The chapter had recorded good progress on proposal writing and research.6. Four major activities had been held including a workshop in Lagos to promote science and

technology for development and a methodology workshop.

41


MASERU

LESOTHO

7. The chapter was now stable with the division of labour and delegation of responsibilities.8. A Round Table on globalization had been held.9. The chapter plans to have a meeting to discuss the setting up of centres of excellence.10. The chapter also plans to mount a parliamentary round table and an initiative to work at the

state’s level.

TANZANIA1. The Africa Science Day was commemorated successfully. It included an exhibition and a

conference.2. A methodology workshop was successfully held.3. A Parliamentarians’ conference had been planned to take place in October but did not take

place.4. More lobbying of government is required.5. The co-ordinator works for a government ministry while majority of members are from the

university. She tends to run into problems pushing agenda that others might consider to be intheir own docket.

SIERRA LEONE1. The country had a mixed year - coordinator was active both at the chapter and science and

technology levels.2. A strong committee on science and technology had been set up by the government.3. The chapter was trying to link up with NGOs working in development.

GHANA1. A national workshop had been held in June for registration of members beyond universities

and like institutions and to enlist the support of the government.2. The national chapter constitution had been ratified and 15 members had paid $20 membership

fees.3. Africa Science Day was commemorated in collaboration with the relevant ministries at a

village in Kumasi.4. Peer review had been conducted and scientists encouraged to write proposals for research.5. Operations of the chapter had been streamlined and bank accounts put in order.6. The chapter was working on strengthening networking with other organizations.

ETHIOPIA1. The chapter had been registered as an association.2. Africa Science Day was commemorated, with policy-makers and other stakeholders attending

the celebrations.3. Research projects were reported to be going on.4. Progress had been achieved linking the chapter with stakeholders. The Science Commission,

for example, had requested the chapter to run a seminar for media practitioners.5. A member had been involved in a science research project by the Ministry of Capacity

Building and the results would be used to inform the policy formulation process.6. A member had received a promotion in government.7. The co-ordinator had used various fora to promote the activities of ATPS.8. The Chapter was working on an internet-based strategy to reverse the brain drain and thus

promote capacity building.9. The co-ordinator was encouraging his students at the university to do research on science

and technology. Four students had done research in the area.10. An office for the national chapter had been established.11. An accounting and banking system had also been set up.12. The chapter was considering revising its strategic plan.13. There are plans to launch a news bulletin for the chapter.

42


MASERU

LESOTHO

14. A Science communication for journalists programme is also under way.15. There were attempts to involve the Christian Relief and Development (CRD) organisation

with a view to obtaining funding.16. The Chapter had tended to concentrate its activities in Addis Ababa and efforts were being

made to move further into the country.17. Cooperation with the government was still wanting as was recognition of ATPS by authorities.

During the Africa Science Day celebrations, for example, no mention was made of ATPSby the media covering government functionaries who attended the event.

ZAMBIA1. Lack of funding during the previous year had affected the chapter’s activities.2. Networking had continued.3. The chapter had sent some members to a methodology workshop in Zimbabwe.4. The co-ordinator had attended a workshop on poverty eradication in Tanzania. The chapter

had generated a policy brief and streamlined its working relations with the Tanzanian chapter.Two of its members had been incorporated into the biotechnology taskforce.

COMMENTS FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ON THE REPORTS

1. Some chapters have been inactive. When that happens the country suffers.2. Reporting is important and must be comprehensive.3. Africa Revival Day had, in general, been well commemorated.4. National chapters were gradually being registered and a system that allows delegation of

authority should, therefore, be established. Such delegation would allow continuity of chapteractivities in the absence of the co-ordinator.

5. There is a strong need to conduct fund-raising at the national level.6. Fund-raising should be handled with care in order not to demonstrate value for money.

COMMENTS FROM COORDINATORS ON THE REPORTS

1. Policy-makers should be invited to ATPS conferences and workshops.2. Individual chapters that are yet to be registered should explore ways and means of doing so

in their own countries as registration laws vary from country to country.

Educational Tour to Mohale Dam

Delegates took time off from the workshop to make an educational tour of Mohale Dam, part of theLesotho Highlands Development Authority’s initiative to harness water for sale to South Africa andfor generation of electricity locally. The journey through Lesotho’s mountains caused great anxietyamong the visitors with their nerves on edge as they negotiated their way over high cliffs, narrowcanyons and rocky terrain to succour the scenery of the reputed mountain kingdom.

43


MASERU

LESOTHO

10.0 ATPS Annual General Meeting

The ATPS Annual General Meeting was held on Friday November 14, 2003 in the Cinema Hall ofthe Lesotho Sun International Hotel and Casino in Maseru, Lesotho.

The outgoing chairman Prof. Norah Olembo gave apologies of Board members who had beenunable to attend. Dr. Osita Ogbu, an ex-official member of the Board, gave profiles of the membersof the out-going Board. He also recommended inclusion of new chapters into ATPS. Dr. Osita putforward a recommendation that the outgoing Board be retained for a further two-year period. TheATPS Annual General Meeting agreed as follows:

1. That the entire ATPS Board be retained to run the affairs of ATPS for a new two-yearterm.

2. That new chapters join the network.(The proposal to re-elect the Board for a new two-year period was made by Prof. Matsela ofLesotho and seconded by Mr. Chris Squire of Sierra Leone and Prof. Bamiro of Nigeria.)3. That the new Board makes a decision on the venue for the next ATPS Conference and

Workshop.

44


MASERU

LESOTHO

11.0 Closure of ATPS Conference andWorkshop

The Third ATPS Conference and Workshop was officially closed by Dr. D.R. Phororo, Lesotho’sMinister for Agriculture and Food Security who termed the meeting an important investment thatwould lead to embracing science and technology as critical tools for development. The ministerbrought out the various lessons that had emerged from the conference and workshop, concludingthat a pro-people approach by scientists was needed to stem the onslaught of poverty and hunger inAfrica.

Dr. Phororo said appropriate and innovative systems of technology must be designed and appliedbut should reach the people. He said it was ironic that Lesotho should experience food insecuritygiven its abundant water resources and wondered whether Africa was indeed incapable of convertingscientific knowledge into products. Indigenous knowledge, he added, could help solve the continentsfood problems, saying over reliance on technological miracles such as GMOs may not provideadequate solutions.

The minister called for the uplifting of the status of women and recognition of their role in foodproduction. His government, he said, placed employment creation and food security as their primarypriorities, followed by infrastructure, quality basic education, quality health care and social welfare.Science and technology had a fundamental role to play in the realization of the government’s prioritygoals.

The minister paid tribute to Lesotho Minister for Communications, Science, Technology, andATPS for hosting the conference and workshop. He singled out the Lesotho chapter for its role inorganizing the meeting.

45


MASERU

LESOTHO

APPENDIX 1: OPENING SPEECH

Opening Remarks by Dr. ‘Mamphono Khaketla, Honourable Minister for Communication, Science andTechnology at the African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS)/Ministry of Communication, Scienceand Technology (Lesotho) Conference/Workshop on “Science and Technology and Food Security in Africa”

His Majesty King Letsie IIIThe Right Honourable Prime MinisterHonourable MinistersYour Excellencies Members of the Diplomatic CorpsThe Principal Secretary, Ministry of Communications, Science and TechnologyVice Chancellor of the University of LesothoSenior Government OfficialsChairman of the African Technology Policies StudiesThe Local Coordinators of ATPSDistinguished ParticipantsMembers of the PressLadies and Gentlemen:

On behalf of the Government of the Kingdom of Lesotho, and on my own behalf, I wish to extend awarm Lesotho welcome to you all and greet you with our traditional greeting, khotso (peace bewith you). In particular I would like to heartily welcome and thank the Chairman and members ofthe ATPS Board for having kindly honoured us to host this unique gathering which indeed is one ofits kind in Lesotho. This is not the first time that we find ATPS in our midst. Earlier this year wewere privileged to host another ATPS activity which we would believe, was time well spent.

I wish to welcome with pleasure all esteemed members of the science and technology policy fraternity,researchers, academia, government representatives, our development agencies and internationalpartners of varied levels of expertise and experience from all over sub-Saharan Africa: west, eastand south. I am informed that we also have specialists from as far a field as India, Canada, Uruguayand USA. I am encouraged to note that our own Lesotho citizens are participating in large numbersand some are actually presenting papers at this conference. It is a learning opportunity of rare value.

Master of Ceremonies,Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am greatly honoured that the Government of Lesotho, through the Ministry of Communications,Science and Technology, is hosting this very important and educating experience, which we hopeour people will use to their greatest advantage especially given the relevance of the theme for thisthird annual conference and workshop, which is Science And Technology And Food Security InAfrica. The objectives of this conference are:

• To address issues related to S&T for food security in Africa;• To provide another skills-development opportunity on S&T policy- related research

methodology;• To review new research proposals for possible funding;• To capacitate Lesotho on S&T policy implementation and research management

This theme is not only timely but also relevant, considering the current economic predicament thatAfrica faces. The theme hits very close to the bone for us in Lesotho given the severe drought andsubsequent poor harvests over the last two ploughing seasons. The time has come for us to think ofmore innovative and technology driven ways of ensuring better food security.

46


MASERU

LESOTHO

Those of you who arrived by air must have noticed the devastation on the ground in terms of thedongas and dryness. Thus for us this seminar is not just an academic exercise but also somethingwhich should be taken seriously. We are reminded of the basic necessity of food and the fact thatmillions of Africans are starving everyday and several thousands continue to die due to starvationand related diseases including the great pandemic, HIV/AIDS. We all need to ask ourselves howprepared we are to protect our peoples from utter starvation in spite of plentiful human, and otherresources. We need to accept the responsibility to work together to prevent and eradicate theprevailing evils of poverty, starvation a s d pandemics. If the most regular onslaught of droughtshould cause so much misery (in southern Africa especially), what do we do to make food securityand community health our foremost priority concerns and challenges? I wish this conference couldchallenge us to think critically and creatively of alternative ways to address the issue of food securityamong our peoples. Food security does not merely refer to effective production of crop and animalproducts, but also to various ways of storing and preserving these foods for both local and regionaluse. Africa should be challenged to undertake critical studies into indigenous and current systems offood production, food storage, food preservation and dissemination and develop these systems tomeet the challenges of today.

The pervasive role of science and technology in driving the economy of modern nations is no longerin doubt. I am sure you will agree with me that science includes all careful and objective reflectionof research and practice and their fruits, which constitute technology. Furthermore, varied stock ofknowledge instruments and tools and infrastructure constitute observable aspects of our technologies.Technological advancement is also used today as a measure of progress and civilization. This,therefore, depicts the need for critical assessment of our position in it. If we in Lesotho and in mostof Black Africa remain mere consumers of other people’s scientific and technological products, canwe ever hope to advance in these important areas of development? Perhaps the primary clarion callshould address our attitudes towards sciences, mathematics and technology. Unless and until ourindividual and group attitudes and practices towards these subjects change we cannot hope todevelop. This further calls for a strong support for research and development in order to turn ourknowledge into goods and services. We need to re-tap our indigenous technology capabilities offood production (like seasonal planting and harvesting, traditions and practices such as weatherforecasts, “ho upa linonyana” and others), for food storage and preservation practices. In this era ofthe information age, one cannot overlook the practical role played by new emerging technologiessuch as information and communication technologies (ICTs) as well as biotechnologies towardssustainable development. This inevitably includes poverty alleviation and food security, which are tobe addressed in accordance with the declared United Nations Millennium Development Goals.

It was only last Thursday and Friday that I joined several other African Ministers of Science andTechnology in the context of NEPAD. What an eye-opener it was. Amongst the papers preparedfor that conference was one prepared by our very own Executive Director, Dr. Ogbu, in collaborationwith Dr. Khalil Timamy who hit a very raw nerve when they said most African countries “romanticizescience and technology” and that most policymakers although they emphasize the seriousness ofscience and technology most governments merely pay lip service and technology. I hope the outcomeof this conference will produce more tangible results.

In conclusion, Master of Ceremonies: Allow me to highlight that, the challenges indicated above arenot only our individual national priority areas for human development but are the regional andinternational concerns of such bodies like the African Union and the New Partnership for Africa’sDevelopment (NEPAD), the Commonwealth, UNCTAD as well as the United Nations Commissionfor Science and Technology to mention but a few. We of the Science and technology constituencyshould, therefore, recognize the broad opportunities that emanate from the support and initiatives ofthese bodies.

47


MASERU

LESOTHO

The challenge to the people assembled in this hall today, is to come up with solutions of how scienceand technology can be utilized to satisfy the urgent economic and social needs of the region.

I wish you successful deliberations so that you can achieve the set objectives. Allow me, Master ofCeremonies, once more to reiterate my welcome to you all. I am aware that you will take off yourbusy schedule to visit Mohale Dam, one of the two Lesotho Highlands Water Project dams. Enjoythe scenic view and enjoy the refreshing mountain air. My I also thank the ATPS Board, managementand the organizing committee for making this conference a success.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is now my singular honour to declare the Third ATPS Annual Conferenceand Workshop officially opened.

KHOTSO! PULA! NALA!

48


MASERU

LESOTHO

APPENDIX 2: WORKSHOP PROGRAMME

PLENARY SESSIONATPS/MCST CONFERENCE AND WORKSHOP

SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY AND FOOD SECURITY IN AFRICA

Monday, 10 November 2003

Opening SessionChair: Principal, Ministry of Communications, Science and Technology, Lesotho

9:00a - 11:00a Brief remarks from Dr. Osita Ogbu, Executive Director, ATPSBrief remarks from Prof. Norah Olembo, Chair, ATPS BoardKeynote Speakers: “Science & Technology for Food Security in Africa”

Prof. Bede Okigbo, former Director, United Nations University/Institute forNatural Resource in Africa (Ghana)Dr. Carlos Seré, Director General, International Livestock Research Institute,(Kenya)

Official Opening: Hon. Dr. ‘Mamphono Khaketla, Minister for Communications,Science and Technology (Lesotho)

11:00a - 11:30a TEA/COFFEE BREAK

Session IChair: Permanent Secretary, Communications, Science and Technology, Lesotho

11:30a - 12:00p “The WTO and the Future of African Agriculture” by Dr. AblasséOuedraogo, former Deputy Director General, WTO

Discussant: Dr. Mohamed Khalil-Timamy, Senior Lecturer, Environmental andTechnology Policy, University of Nairobi and Senior Policy Research Associate,ATPS

12:00p - 12:30p Open discussion

12:30p - 2:00p LUNCHEONVenue: Pool Area/Terrace“From Science to Products –Transmitting Knowledge to African RuralFarmers: What Works and What Does Not Work” by Prof. BabatundeObilana, ICRISAT

Session IIChair: Prof. Oliver Saasa, Research Professor, Institute of Economic and Social Research, Lusaka and

ATPS Board Member

14:00p – 14:30p “How Viable are Indigenous Technologies Towards Realising Africa’s FoodSecurity?” by Martin Kimani, Africa Regional Centre, Centre for Agriculture andBiosciences (CABI), Nairobi

Discussant: Ms. Bitrina Diyamett, Senior Scientific Officer, Tanzania Commission forScience and Technology (COSTECH) and National Coordinator, ATPS TanzaniaChapter

14:30p – 15:00p Open discussion

49


MASERU

LESOTHO

15:00p – 15:30p “HIV/AIDS and Its Impact on Africa’s Agricultural Performance” by Dr. Acholla-Pala Okeyo, Huairou Commission, (New York)

Discussant: Dr. Sylvester Ndeso Atanga, Lecturer, Epidemology & Public Health,University of Buea, Cameroon and National Coordinator, ATPS Cameroon Chapter


16:00p – 17:30p TEA/COFFEE BREAK AND MARKETPLACE/EXHIBITION ANDNETWORKING

18:00p – 20:30p Cocktail Reception hosted by the Ministry of Communications, Science andTechnology

Tuesday, 11 November 2003

Session IIIChair: Prof. Norah Olembo, Professor of Biochemistry, University of Nairobi, and ATPS Board Chair

8:30a - 09:30a “Biotechnology and the Implications of the GMO Revolution for Africa’s FoodSecurity: The African Perspective” by Dr. Victor Konde, UNCTAD

“Biotechnology and the Implications of the GMO Revolution for Africa’s FoodSecurity: Lessons from Asia and Latin America” by Dr. Padmashree Gehl Sampath,United Nations University/Institute for New Technologies

Discussant: Dr. Musa Dube, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Swaziland andNational Coordinator, ATPS Swaziland Chapter

09:30a - 10:00a Open discussion


Session IVChair: Mr. Chris B. Squire, Head, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Sierra Leone, and

ATPS National Coordinator, Sierra Leone Chapter

10:30 a - 11:00a “Harnessing ICTs for Improved Agricultural Performance in Africa” by Dr. ZMNyiira, Executive Secretary, Uganda National Council for Science & Technologyand former National Coordinator, ATPS Uganda Chapter

Discussant: Prof. Melvin Ayogu, Professor of Economics, University of Cape Town,South Africa and Coordinator, ATPS Regional Project on “Strengthening ICTPolicy in Africa: Governance, Equity and Institutional Issues”

11:00a - 11:30a Open discussion

11:30a - 12:00p “Why has Africa Fallen Short of Building Dynamic Agro-Processing Capabilities?Options, Constraints and Prospects?” by Dr. Wellington Otieno, FoodlinkResources (Kenya) and Ms. Ada Mwangola, OXFAM (Kenya)

Discussant: Prof. Banji Oyeyinka, Senior Research Fellow, United NationsUniversity, Institute for New Technologies, The Netherlands and former NationalCoordinator, ATPS Nigeria Chapter


12:30p - 2:00p LUNCHEON

50


MASERU

LESOTHO

Venue: Pool Area/Terrace“Lesotho Initiatives Toward Food Security: A Situation Analysis” by Prof. MafaSejanamane, National University of Lesotho

Session VChair: Ms. Yolonda Richardson, President and CEO, CEDPA, Washington DC, and ATPS Board Member

2:00p – 2:30p “Gender Dimensions of the Current Agricultural Performance in Africa” by Dr.Rose Rita Kingamkono, Tanzania Commission on Science and Technology

Discussant: Ms. Charlotte Wonani, Lecturer, Development Studies Department,University of Zambia and National Coordinator, ATPS Zambia Chapter


Tuesday, 11 November 2003

3:00p – 3:30p “Markets, Institutions and Agricultural Performance in Africa” by Dr. JuliusMangsioni, Bunda College of Agriculture, Malawi

Discussant: Prof. Michael C. Madukwe, Professor of Agricultural Extension,University of Nigeria, Nsukka and ATPS National Coordinator, Nigeria Chapter


4:00p – 4:30p TEA/COFFEE BREAK

4:30p – 5:00p “Research Priority Areas for Africa’s Food Security” Prof. Shellemia Keya, TACExecutive Secretariat, Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations,Italy

Discussant: Dr. John Mugabe, Executive Secretary, African Commission on Scienceand Technology, NePAD, South Africa


GROUP A: AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY POLICY

Wednesday, 12 November 2003Morning Session:Chair: Prof. Norah Olembo

9:00a - 9:50a A1: “The policy of reducing the importation of rice: enhancing national capacity forrice self-sufficiency in Ghana” by Paul Kofi A. Dartey and D. Awunyo

9:50a - 10:40a A2: “The influence of modern technologies on indigenous knowledge in farmingsystems of Morogoro district, Tanzania” by Adolf F. Makauki and Josephat Itika


11:10a - 12:00p A3: “Assessing the status of food biotechnology in Swaziland and Nigeria” by F.M.Badejo and L.O. Sanni

12:00p - 12:50p A4: “Biotechnology systems of innovation: A study of institutions and policies inCameroon” by Violet Bumah and Alfred Ngwa

12:50p - 2:00p LUNCH BREAK

51


MASERU

LESOTHO

Afternoon Session:Chair: Prof. Babatunde Obilana

2:00p - 2:50p A5: “Socio-economic effects of improved post-harvest technologies in maizeproduction in Kaprochwa district of Uganda” by Paul Mwebaze and Edward Kato

2:50p - 3:40p A6: “Selecting appropriate value adding technologies for diversifying utilization oftissue-culture derived bananas in East Africa” by Margaret Karembu, S. Wakhusanaand J. Namaganda

3:40p - 4:10p TEA/COFFEE BREAK

4:10p - 5:00p A7: “The impact of biogas technology in Lesotho: Facts and challenges” by ElliotLefa Thamae, Muso Raliselo and TS’ehlo Moshe

5:00p - 5:50p A8: “Small-scale irrigation schemes in Swaziland and their role in poverty alleviation:Implications for policy formulation” by Absalom Manyatsi and Patrick Khumalo

Thursday, 13 November 2003Chair: Dr. Wellington Otieno

8:30a - 9:20a A9: “Effects of institutional and policy reforms in Uganda’s forestry sector on thesawmilling technology and opportunities for improvement” by Joseph Obua and PaulMugambi

9:20a - 10:10a A10: “A study of the effectiveness of farm technologies delivery systems on small-scale farming in South-West, Nigeria” by Abel Babalola Ogunwale

10:10a - 11:00p A11: “Biotechnological innovations in Soil fertility management for women farmers:the key to improving small-holder agriculture in Ghana” by S. Agyenim Boateng, S.Boadi and J. Haleegoah


11:20a - 12:10p A12: “Towards a national strategy for enhancing the adoption of improved varietiesof maize for food security in Ghana” by Christopher Kwame Ayim

12:10p - 1:00p A13: “Technology and marketing problems of small-scale dairy enterprises in Kenya”

by Gidraph Nduati and Winifred Karugu

GROUP B: INFORMATION & COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY POLICY

Wednesday, 12 November 2003Morning Session:Chair: Prof. Oliver Saasa

9:00a - 9:50a B1: “The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) sector in Nigeria: A casestudy of the computer hardware industry sub-sector” by O.A. Bamiro, B.A, Durojaiye,and A. I. Onueme

9:50a - 10:40a B2: “A study of the effect of computerization on the performance of governmentinstitutions in Sierra Leone” by Abu Kamara


52


MASERU

LESOTHO

11:10a - 12:00p B3: “Social dimensions of information technology (IT) in Kenya: With reference topolicy implications on the social structure” by Mumbi Machera

12:00p - 12:50p B4: “Investigation of Lesotho’s ICT readiness and formulation of ICT policyframework” by Teferi Kebede and Ntsibane Ntlatlapa


Afternoon Session:Chair: Ms. Yolonda Richardson

2:00p - 2:50p B5: “What kind of technology is needed for effective teaching and learning in theprimary schools of Lesotho” by Sophia Majara

2:50p - 3:40p B6: “A study of the effects of electronic Banking on the performance of selectedcommercial banks in Sierra Leone” by Sarah F. Bendu


4:10p - 5:00p B7: “Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in Cameroon: Changesand prospects for the future” by John Suh Che

5:00p - 5:50p B8: “The technological capabilities of the Baking industry in Nigeria: Implications forlearning and training” by Nnenna J. Enwere

Thursday, 13 November 2003Chair: Prof. Melvin Ayogu

8:30a - 9:20a B9: “Has the new and emerging information technology improved efficiency in thebanking sector in Ethiopia?” by Tassew Belachew and Abdurahman Ame

9:20a - 10:10a B10: “Determination of the support required to promote, adopt and apply ICTs inSwaziland: implications for policy formulation” by MD Dlamini and Musa A. Dube

10:10a - 11:00p B11: “Effects of telecenters on agricultural technology transfer in Uganda” by JamesKakooza and Dave Khayangayanga


11:20a - 12:10p B12: “A study on ICT for Rural development in Ethiopia” by Berhanu Denu

12:10p - 1:00p B13: “Mozambique to come”

GROUP C: TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER, TRADE & INDUSTRY, IPRS, GENDER AND

SME TECHNOLOGY POLICY ISSUES

Wednesday, 12 November 2003Morning Session:Chair: Prof. Banji Oyeyinka

9:00a - 9:50a C1: “Assessment of technological capabilities in the industrial small and mediumscale enterprises sector in Zambia” by William Mbuta and William Musonda

9:50a - 10:40a C2: “Trade liberalization and production in Uganda: A case of manufacturing sector”by Nichodemus Rudaheranwa and Ashie Mukungu


53


MASERU

LESOTHO

11:10a - 12:00p C3: “Technology accumulation and development in Small and Medium Enterprises(SMEs): A case study of Agro-allied sub-sector of Nigeria’s economy” by D. A.Okongwu

12:00p - 12:50p C4: “Local requirements for effective technology transfer and diffusion in Zambia:Options, constraints and prospects” by Lipalile Mufana and Mutombo Namuunda


Afternoon Session:Chair: Dr. Mohamed Khalil-Timamy

2:00p - 2:50p C5: “The leather industry of Ethiopia: An investigation of supply constraints andfirms technological capabilities” by Abreham Gebeyenu and Dejene Aredo

2:50p - 3:40p C6: “Are there significant technology and productivity spill-overs from multi-national corporations in sub-Saharan Africa? A cross-country study of Ghana, Kenya,Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe” by Samwel Bwalya and Peter Sampa


4:10p - 5:00p C7: “The Technology factor in Solid Waste Management in Nigeria” by A.J. Kumuyi

5:00p - 5:50p C8: “”Utilization of the patent system by R&D institutions in Tanzania” by GeorgesShemdoe

Thursday, 13 November 2003Chair: Dr. Osita Ogbu

8:30a - 9:20a C9: “Promoting female participation in Science and Technology for development andpoverty alleviation in Cameroon” by John W. Forje

9:20a - 10:10a C10: “Evaluation of technology and policy framework for the promotion of small andmedium scale Kenyan Leather and leather goods manufacturing” by B.O. F. Odongo

10:10a - 11:00p C11: “A study of licensing and foreign technology implications for technologytransfer in industries in Nigeria” by E. O. Essien and K. Hassan


11:20a - 12:10p C12: “Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), Technology Transfer and PovertyReduction in Botswana” by Donatilla Kaino

12:10p - 1:00p C13: “Technology Requirements of Metal Working Micro- and Small Enterprises inZimbabwe” by Charles Halimana

13 – 15 November 2003

Thursday, 13 November 2003 (Afternoon Session)


RESEARCH METHODOLOGY TRAINING WORKSHOP

2:00p - 3:00p “Introduction to Technology Policy” by Dr. Mohamed Khalil

3:00p - 4:00p “Research Methodology Issues” by Prof. Banji Oyeyinka

54


MASERU

LESOTHO


4:30p - 5:30p “Writing Skills” by Magayu K. Magayu

Note: The Board will meet concurrently in the Suite 1/BR1.

Friday, 14 November 2003

Morning Session:Chair: Prof. Norah Olembo

ATPS ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

9:00a – 10:30a UNESCO funded presentation on Technology and Poverty Eradication (TAPE) by Dr.Peggy Oti-Boateng, Dr. A. Komba and Mr. M.A. Jalloh

10:30a – 11:00a Presentation of the Strategic Plan by Prof. Melvin Ayogu

11:00a – 11:30a [WORKING] TEA/COFFEE BREAK

11:30a – 12:30p Annual General Meeting

Afternoon:12:30p – 5:00p Educational tour to Mohale Dam (including lunch)

7:00p onwards Closing dinner Venue: Salon A&B

Saturday, 15 November 2003

Chair: Dr. Osita Ogbu

NATIONAL COORDINATOR’S MEETING9:00a – 11:00a National Coordinator’s Meeting

11:00a – 11:30a TEA/COFFEE BREAK

11:30a – 1:00p National Coordinator’s Meeting

LUNCH BREAK

55


MASERU

LESOTHO

APPENDIX 3: LIST OF PARTICIPANTSBENIN

1. Dr. Rock Lambert Mongbo(ATPS National Co-ordinator)Senior Lecturer/ResearcherDESAC/FSA – Université d’Abomey – Calavi,CEBEDES – Xudodo02 B.P. 778 GbégameyCotonou, BéninTel. Office: +229 304139Mobile: +229 966446Email: [email protected]

BOTSWANA

2. Dr. Donatilla KainoLecturer,University of BotswanaP.O Box 70025Gaborone, BotswanaTel: +267 624 2412Email: [email protected]

3. Dr. John Mothibi(ATPS National Co-ordinator)Lecturer, Faculty of Engineering & TechnologyUniversity of BotswanaP/Bag 0061Gaborone, BotswanaTel: +267 3554348Fax: +267 3952309E-mail: [email protected]

BURKINA FASO

4. Dr. Ablassé OuedraogoSpecial Advisor to the DG, ILO01 P.O. Box 2427Ouagadougou 01Burkina FasoTel: 00 226 374080Fax: 00226 374050Email: [email protected]

5. Dr. Benoît Kaboré(ATPS National Co-ordinator)Enseignant PermanentLIFR/SH Université Ouagadougou01 BP 4487 Ouagadougou 01Burkina FasoTel: 00 226 380715; cell: 812008Fax: 00 226 308365Email: [email protected]

CAMEROON

6. Dr. John Suh CheRetiring, Assistant Research OfficerMinistry of Scientific and Technical ResearchP.O. Box 6963

Yaounde, CameroonTel: +237-755-8334Email: [email protected]

7. Dr. John W. ForjeSenior Research Officer/LecturerUniversity of Yaounde II - SOADept. of Political ScienceB.P. 13429Yaounde, Cameroon RepublicTel: +237 2231825Fax: +237 2231825Email: [email protected] or

[email protected]

8. Dr. Sylvester Ndeso Atanga(ATPS National Co-ordinator)Senior Lecturer/EpidemiologistFaculty of Health SciencesUniversity of BueaP.O. Box 63 SWPRepublic of CameroonTel: +237 7615755/984143Fax: +237 332 2270/71Email: [email protected]

9. Dr. Violet Vakunseh BumahLecturer/ResearcherBiotechnology Unit, Dept. of Life Sciences, Facultyof Science,University of BueaB.P. 63Buea, CameroonTel: +237 7786751Fax: +237 7786751Email: [email protected]

COTE D’ IVOIRE

10. Dr. Arsene Kouadio Konan(ATPS National Co-ordinator)Associate Professor/Chief of Division, Research inEconomicsUniversity of Abidjan/CIRES08 B.P. 1295Abidjan, Cote d’IvoireTel: +225 22 447742Fax: +225 22 440829Email: [email protected]

ETHIOPIA

11. Dr. Dejene Aredo(ATPS National Coordinator)Associate Professor of EconomicsAddis Ababa UniversityP.O. Box 150008Addis Ababa

56


MASERU

LESOTHO

Tel: +251 1 185185/553900Fax: +251 1 551399Email: [email protected]

12. Mr. Berhanu Denu GenjoLecturer, Addis Ababa College of CommerceP.O. Box 41510Addis Ababa, EthiopiaTel: +251-1-52120/251-1-483631Email: [email protected]

13. Mr. Tassew Bekele BelachewFreelance consultant/ResearcherP.O. Box 32629Addis Ababa, EthiopiaTel: +251-1-450166Fax: +251-1-568102Email: [email protected]

14. Mr. Abreham GebeyehuSenior Loan OfficerDevelopment Bank of EthiopiaP.O. Box 18954Addis Ababa, EthiopiaTel: +254-1-61511188Email: [email protected]

GHANA

15. Mr. Ayim Kwame Lily ChristopherFood Security, Storage and Infestation Control OfficerGhana Food Distribution Corp.P.O. Box 4225Accra, GhanaTel: +233 21 773856/779401Fax: +233 21 773068Email: [email protected]

16. Dr. Paul K. A. DarteyScientific OfficerCrops Research Institute (CSIR)P.O. Box 3785Kumasi, GhanaTel: +020 812 412Email: [email protected]

17. Dr. Peggy Oti-BoatengDirectorTechnology Consultancy CentreKwame Nkrumah University of Science & TechnologyKumasi, GhanaTel: +233 51 60296/7Fax: +233 51 0137Email: [email protected]

18. Dr. Samuel Agyenim BoatengResearch ScientistSoil Research InstituteAcademy Post Office,

Kwadaso - KumasiGhanaTel: +233 51 50353/4Email: [email protected]

19. Dr. George Owusu Essegbey(ATPS National Coordinator)Senior Research ScientistScience and Technology Policy Research Institute(STEPRI), CSIRP.O. Box CT519Accra, GhanaTel: +233 21 773856Fax: +233 21 773068Email: [email protected]

KENYA

20. Mr. Geoffrey G. KoechSenior Research OfficerKenya Industrial Research & Development InstituteP.O. Box 30650 GPONairobi, KenyaTel: +254 20 609440Fax: +254 20 607023Email: [email protected]

21. Dr. Margaret Gathoni KarembuSenior Research ScientistISAAA Africentre, ILRI CampusP.O. Box 25171-00603Nairobi, KenyaTel: +254 20 630743Fax: +254 20 631955Email: [email protected]

22. Prof. Norah Olembo(ATPS Board Chair)Professor of BiotechnologyUniversity of NairobiP.O. Box 30197Nairobi, Kenya

23. Prof. Shellemiah KeyaFormer, TAC SecretariatFood and Agricultural OrganisationP.O. Box 35171-00200Nairobi, KenyaTel: +254-721-852526

24. Mr. Martin KimaniScientistCAB International, Africa Regional CentreP.O. Box 633-00621Nairobi, KenyaTel: +254 20 524462Fax: +254 20 522150Email: [email protected]

57


MASERU

LESOTHO

25. Ms. Mumbi MacheraLecturer, Department of SociologyUniversity of NairobiP.O. Box 30197Nairobi, KenyaTel: +254-721 442552Fax: + 254 20 212342Email: [email protected]

26. Dr. Wellington A. OtienoDirector, Foodlink ResourcesP.O. Box 74506Nairobi, KenyaTel: +254 20 609589Email: [email protected]

27. Mrs. Winifred Nyambura KaruguLecturerJomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture andTechnologyP.O. Box 60893 00200Nairobi, KenyaTel: +254 722 891696Email: [email protected]

28. Dr. Thomas Fitz RandolfProject Leader, Human Health ImpactsInternational Livestock Research InstituteP.O. Box 30709Nairobi, KenyaTel: +254 20 630743 ext. 4953Fax: +254 20 631499Email: [email protected]

LESOTHO

29. Mrs. Celina K. M. QoboArchivistNational University of LesothoP.O. Roma 180MaseruLesothoTel: +266 22 213429Fax: +266 22 340000Email: [email protected]

30. Dr. Francis RakotsoaneInterim Head of the SchoolSchool of Arts & HumanitiesNational University of LesothoP.O. Roma 180LesothoTel: 266 22213616Email: [email protected]

31. Dr. J. MohammedLecturerNational University of LesothoP.O. Roma 180

LesothoTel: +266 587 31915Email: [email protected]

32. Mr. Joseph N. ThabanaLecturerSchool of EducationNational University of LesothoP.O. Box 180LesothoTel: +266 587 31915Email: [email protected]

33. Ms. Julia Chere-MasophaLecturerAcademic Development CentreNational University of LesothoP.O. Roma 180LesothoTel: +266 22 213628Fax: +266 22 340000Email: [email protected]

34. Ms. Lebala Miriam KolobeLecturerLesotho College of EducationP.O. Box 7565Maseru 100LesothoTel: +266 58734738Email: [email protected]

35. Ms. Limakatso RankoDocumentalist, Library & Information StudiesNational University of LesothoP.O. Roma 180LesothoTel: +266 22213885Fax: +266 22340000Email: [email protected]

36. Litsepiso MatlosaLecturerNational University of LesothoP.O. Box 178Roma 180LesothoTel: +266 22 213654Email: [email protected]

37. Mrs. Malijane C. KalokoResearch OfficerDept. of Police DirectorateMinistry of Home AffairsP.O. Box 174Maseru 100LesothoTel: +266 22 320297

58


MASERU

LESOTHO

Fax: +266 22 310587

38. Mrs. Malineo A. MatselaInterim Chair of EDF ProgrammeSchool of EducationP.O. Box 180Roma, LesothoTel: +266 22 340601Fax: +266 22 340000Email: [email protected]

39. Mrs. Mamota NtsekheResearch OfficerDept. of Policy DirectorateMinistry of Home AffairsP.O. Box 174Maseru 100LesothoTel: +266 22 320297Fax: +266 310587

40. Mrs. Mapaseka KolotsaneDeputy Director (Academic)Lerotholi PolytechnicP.O. Box 16Maseru 0100LesothoTel: +266 22322851Fax: +266 22310265

41. Mrs. Masechaba M.L. Mokhathi-MbheheLecturerNational University of LesothoP.O. Roma 180LesothoTel: +266 2234060/22213763Fax: +266 340000Email: [email protected]

42. Mrs. Matselane B. KhaahloeLecturerLesotho College of EducationBox 1393Maseru 100LesothoTel: +266 22312721

43. Mrs. Matseliso A.M. KabeliLibrarianLerotholi PolytechnicP.O. Box 16Maseru 100LesothoTel: +266 58855263Fax: +266 22310265Email: [email protected]

44. Mrs. Maryann Mamohapi Rakhoba

ATPS Lesotho ChapterAbia High SchoolMinistry of EducationP.O. Box 2047Maseru 102LesothoTel: +266 22317208

45. Mrs. Maseqobela B. WilliamsDirector, Dept. of Science & TechnologyP/Bag A23Maseru 100LesothoTel: +266 22 313632Fax: +266 22 310084Email: [email protected]

46. Mr. Molebatsi M. NgaDirector, Building & InfrastructureNational University of LesothoP.O. Box 180Roma, LesothoTel: +266 22 340216Fax: +266 22 340216Email: [email protected]

47. Mrs. Monica MakaraAssistant RegistrarNational University of LesothoP.O. Box Roma 180LesothoTel: +266 22340247/22213865Fax: +266 22340000Email: [email protected]

48. Mr. Nkhethoa Machela S.Director of StudiesLerotholi PolytechnicBox 16Maseru 100LesothoTel: +09266 58863455Email: [email protected]

49. Mr. Petrose Thaha LesalaATPS Lesotho chapterTsenola, P.O. Box 4518Sebaboleng 104Maseru, LesothoTel: +266 27003143

50. Mrs. Pullanikkatil DeepaLecturer, Civil EngineeringLerotholi PolytechnicP.O. Box 1112Maseru 100Lesotho

59


MASERU

LESOTHO

Tel: +266 22 323873Fax: +266 22 310265Email: [email protected]

51. Mrs. Rethabile MalukeSenior Research OfficerDepartment of Science & TechnologyP/Bag A23, Lesotho Bank TowerMaseru 100LesothoTel: +266 22 313632Fax: +266 22 310054Email: maluke@[email protected]

52. Mrs. Semakaleng H. PhaeoliNurse EducatorATPS Lesotho ChapterMaseru 100LesothoTel: +266 22332392/58868111Email: [email protected]

53. Ms. Sophia M. MajaraLecturerLesotho College of EducationMaseru Ha AbiaPrivate Bag A223Maseru 100LesothoTel. Work: +266 312721Tel. Office: +266 3202422Fax: +266 310342Email: [email protected]

54. Mrs. Tjoetso LehanaSenior Nurse EducatorMinistry of Health (NHTC)P.O. Box 1670Maseru 100LesothoTel: +266 22314608

55. Ms. Thato BolilaAss. Research OfficerDepartment of Science & TechnologyPrivate Bag A23Maseru 100LesothoTel: +266 22313632Fax: +266 22310054Email: [email protected]

56. Mr. Tsokolo MusoExecutive DirectorLesotho Academy of ArtsP.O. Box 1773Maseru 100Lesotho

Tel: +266 22316074Fax: +266 22310892Email: [email protected]

57. Mr. Tsolo LebitsaChairpersonKhathang Tema BaitsukuuP.O. Box 8449Maseru 106LesothoTel: +266 22317205Fax: + 266 22310412Email: [email protected]

58. Prof. Zakaria Aunyane Matsela(ATPS National Coordinator)Retired Professor/ConsultantSesotho AcademyP.O. Box 35Roma 180LesothoTel: +266 22 340258Fax: +266 22 340000Email: [email protected]

MALAWI

59. Dr. Julius H. MangisoniSenior Lecturer, Agricultural Economics/ NaturalResource and Environmental Econ.University of MalawiBunda College of AgricultureRural Development DepartmentP.O. Box 219,Lilongwe, MalawiTel: +265 01277434/419/222Fax: +265 01 277364Email: [email protected]@yahoo.co.uk

MALI

60. Dr. Sidiki Gabriel Dembélé(ATPS National Coordinator)Professeur – ChercheurIPR-IFRA - KatidougouBureau Ouest-Africain d’Appui Organisationel et deTechnologie ApproprieésNP E 3730Bamako, MaliTel: +223-226-2559/226-2012Fax: +223-226-2504Email: [email protected]

MOZAMBIQUE

61. Mr. Augusto Francisco Nunes JuniorHead, Infrastructure & ApplicationsICT Policy Implementation Technical UnitAv. Josina Machel, No. 955, 7 Andar,Flat 13, B. Alto-Mae

60


MASERU

LESOTHO

Maputo, MozambiqueTel: +258 88 311 339Fax: +258 1 302289Email: [email protected]

62. Mr. Lourino Alberto Chemane(ATPS Acting National Co-ordinator)ICTs Chief Technical AdvisorICT Policy Implementation Technical Unity (UTICT)Bairro DA Cool, R.P. : AntonioDalmeida No. 61 RKDMaputo, MozambiqueTel: +258 1 309398Fax: +258 1 302289Email: [email protected]

63. Ms. Zauria SaifodineHead of Training and CertificationICT Policy Commission - ICT Policy ImplementationTechnical UnitAv. Guerra Popular No. 20Maputo, MozambiqueTel: +258 1 309398Fax: +258 1 302289Email: [email protected]

NAMIBIA

64. Mr. John SifaniMinistry of Higher EducationTraining and Employment CreationPrivate Bag 13391Windhoek, NamibiaTel. Work: +264 61 2706146Tel. Home: +264 61 210732Fax: +264 61 2706143Email: [email protected]

65. Dr. Adedayo Akinade OgunmokunSenior Lecturer/Head of Dept.University of NamibiaDept. of Crop ScienceUniversity of NamibiaP/Bag 13301Windhoek, NamibiaTel: + 264 65 2235000Fax: +264 65 2235294Email: [email protected]

NIGERIA

66. Dr. Abel Babalola OgunwaseAssociate Professor and ResearcherDept. of Agricultural Economics & ExtensionFaculty of Agricultural SciencesLadoke Akintola, University of Technology,P.M. B. 4000, OgbomosoOyo-State, NigeriaTel: +234 038 720285Email: [email protected]

67. Prof. Ajibola J. KumuyiDirector, Business and Technology DevelopmentDept.Nigerian Institute of Social & Economic ResearchP.M.B. 5.U.I. Post OfficeIbadan, NigeriaTel: +234 28102904-5Fax: +234 28101194Email: [email protected]

68. Chief (Eng.) Effiong Okom EssienDeputy Director, National Office for TechnologyAcquisition & PromotionPlot 168 Cotonou Cresent,Wuse Zone 6,P.M.B. 5074Abuja, NigeriaTel: +234-9-523 9823/523 6954Email: [email protected][email protected]

69. Prof. Femi Olokesusi(Associate National Co-ordinator)Nigerian Institute of Social & Economic Research(NISER)U.I.P.M. B.5Ibadan, NigeriaTel: +234 2 8103345Fax: +234 2 8101194Email: [email protected]

70. Mr. Ihenacho Raymond NnejiDirector, Research Coordination Dept.Raw Materials Research and Development Council427 Aguiyi-Ironsi Street, MaitamaAbuja, PMB 232 Garki FCTAbuja, NigeriaTel: +234 9 4137423Fax: +234 9 413634Email: [email protected]@rmrdc.org

71. Dr. Joyce Nnenna EnwereSenior LecturerDepartment of Food Science TechnologyUniversity of NigeriaNsukka, Enugu state,NigeriaTel: +234 042 770448Email: [email protected]

72. Prof. Michael Chukwuneke Madukwe(ATPS National Co-ordinator)Dept. of Agricultural ExtensionUniversity of NigeriaNsukka, NigeriaTel: +234042 770815Fax: +234 042 770844

61


MASERU

LESOTHO

Email: [email protected]@hyperia.com

73. Prof. Olufemi BamiroProfessor of Mechanical EngineeringFaculty of TechnologyUniversity of IbadanIbadan, NigeriaTel: +234 2 2318796Mobile: +080 23151513Email: [email protected]

SENEGAL

74. Dr. Medou DiakhateConsultantBP 12160Dakar, SenegalTel: +221 559 9589Email: [email protected]

SIERRA LEONE

75. Mr. Chris Squire(ATPS National Coordinator)Head, Mechanical & Maintenance Eng. Dept.Fourah Bay CollegeUniversity of Sierra LeoneFreetown, Sierra LeoneTel: +232 76 610600Email: [email protected]

76. Mr. Abu KamaraLecturerFourah Bay College-University of Sierra LeoneA4 Wilberforce LoopFreetown, Sierra LeoneTel: +232 7611866/620344Email: [email protected]

77. Mrs. Sarah Finda BenduHead of FinanceAction Aid Sierra Leone ProgrammeHousing Unit No. 1Fourah Bay CollegeUniversity of Sierra LeoneSierra LeoneTel: +232 220292Email: [email protected]

78. Mr. Mohamed Allieu JallohDirectorNational Council for Technical, Vocational and otherAcademic Awards (NCTOA)Ministry of Education, Science & TechnologyP.O. Box 135, Tower HillFreetown, Sierra LeoneTel/Fax: +232 22 221695Email: [email protected]@yahoo.fr

SOUTH AFRICA

79. Mr. Madimeja MamashelaExecutive DirectorUrban Sector NetworkPost Net Suite 481Private Bag X4Menlopark 0102South AfricaTel: +27 12 347 0405Email: [email protected]

80. Prof. Melvin AyoguProfessor of EconomicsSchool of EconomicsUniversity of Cape TownUCT, Rondebosch 7701South AfricaTel: +27 21 6502763Fax: +27 21 650 2854Email: [email protected]

SWAZILAND

81. Dr. Absolom ManyatsiSenior LecturerFaculty of AgricultureUniversity of SwazilandP.O. LuyengoSwazilandTel: +268 528 3021 ext. 1129Fax: +268 528 3441Email: [email protected]

82. Mrs. Badejo FolashadeLecturerFaculty of AgricultureUniversity of SwazilandP.O. LuyengoSwazilandTel: +268 404 6347Fax: +268 5283021Email: [email protected]

83. Dr. Musa M. A. DubeHead, Department of Agriculture ExtensionUniversity of SwazilandP.O. LuyengoSwazilandTel: +268 528-3021Fax: +268 528-3441Email: [email protected]

TANZANIA

84. Dr. Adalgot A. KombaSenior LecturerInstitute of Development StudiesUniversity of Dar es SalaamP.O Box 35169Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

62


MASERU

LESOTHO

Tel: 022-2410075/0741-414586Email: [email protected]

85. Mr. Adolf F. MakaukiHead, Centre for Environment, Poverty & Sust.DevelopmentInstitute of Development StudiesMzumbe UniversityP.O. Box 83Mzumbe, TanzaniaTel: +255 23 260 4381/3-4Fax: +255 23 2604382Email: [email protected]

86. Ms. Bitrina Daniel Diyamett(ATPS National Coordinator)Principal Scientific OfficerTanzania Commission for S&T (COSTECH)P.O. Box 4302Dar es Salaam, TanzaniaTel: +255 22 2700752Email: [email protected]

87. Mr. Georges Silas ShemdoePrincipal Scientific OfficerTanzania Commission for Science & TechnologyP.O. Box 4302Dar es SalaamTanzaniaTel: +255 0744 879877Email: [email protected]

UGANDA

88. Dr. Joseph Obua(ATPS National Coordinator)Makerere UniveristyUganda National Council for Science & TechnologyP.O. Box 6884Kampala, UgandaTel: +256 41 543647Fax: +256 41 533574Email: [email protected]

89. Dr. Nichodemus RudaheranwaSenior Research FellowEconomic Policy Research CentrePlot 51 Pool RoadP.O. Box 7841Kampala, UgandaTel: +256 41 540159Fax: +256 41 541022Email: [email protected]

90. Mr. Paul MwebazePost Harvest Handling/Marketing SpecialistAgricultural Coperative Development InternationalPlot 704 Mawanda Rd.P.O. Box 11345

Kampala, Uganda

91. Prof. Zerubabel M. NyiiraExecutive SecretaryUganda National Council for Science and Technology(UNCST)P.O. Box 6884Kampala, UgandaTel: +256-41-250499Fax: +256-41-234579Email: [email protected]

ZAMBIA

92. Ms. Charlotte Wonani(ATPS National Co-ordinator)Lecturer, Development Studies DepartmentP.O. Box 32379Lusaka, ZambiaTel: 01-264632Fax: 01-254297Email: [email protected]

93. Mr. Namuunda MutombaLecturerSocial Development Studies Dept.University of ZambiaP.O. Box 32379Lusaka, ZambiaTel: +260 96 743169Fax: +260 1 290320Email: [email protected]

94. Prof. Oliver S. Saasa(ATPS Board Member)Professor of International Economic RelationsP.O. Box 30900Lusaka, ZambiaTel: +260 1 250626Fax: +260 1 250626Email: [email protected]

95. Mr. Peter Chilufya SampaEconomistZambia Competition CommissionBox 34919Lusaka, Zambia

96. Mr. William Sinkamba MbutaScience and Technology OfficerNational Science and Technology CouncilP.O. Box 51309Lusaka, Danzania

ZIMBABWE

97. Mr. Charles MangosuthuResearch FellowInstitute of DevelopmentUniversity of Zimbabwe

63


MASERU

LESOTHO

P.O. Box 880Harare, ZimbabweTel: +263 4 333341 3Fax: +263 4 333345Email: [email protected]

98. Mr. Benson Zwizwai(ATPS National Co-ordinator)Deputy DirectorInstitute of Development StudiesUniversity of ZimbabweBox MP 167, Mount Pleasant,Harare, ZimbabweTel: +263 4 333341/3Fax: +263 4 333345Email: [email protected]

Regional & International Organizations

99. Dr. Alex TindimubonaSenior Scientific Affairs OfficerUNECAP.O. 3005Addis AbabaEthiopiaTel: +251-1-517200Fax: +251-1-514416Email: [email protected]

100. Prof. A. Babatunde ObilanaPrincipal Scientist (Breeding)ICRISATP.O. Box 39063Nairobi, KenyaTel: +254 20 524562Fax: +254 20 524001Email: [email protected]

101. Dr. Fitz RandolfILRIP.O. Box 25171-00603Nairobi, KenyaTel: +254 20 630743Fax: +254 20 631955

102. Mr. Paul DufourSpecial AdvisorIDRC250 Albert St.Ottawa, KIA 045CanadaTel: +613 236 6163Fax: +613 567 7748Email: [email protected]

103. Dr. Victor KondeEconomic Affairs OfficerUNCTAD, DITE, E-9077

8-11 Avenue de la Paix, Palais des Nations, 1211Geneva 10 SwitzerlandEmail: [email protected]

104. Prof. Banji Oyelaran-OyeyinkaProfessor/Senior ResearcherUnited Nations University/INTECH,Keizer Korelplein 19, Maastricht,The Netherlands 6211 TCTel: +31 43 3506342Fax: +31 43 3506395Email: [email protected]

ATPS SECRETARIAT105. Dr. Osita OgbuExecutive DirectorATPSP.O. Box 10081 00101Nairobi, KenyaTel: +254 20 2714092/168Fax: +254 20 2714028Email: [email protected]

106. Sheila MainaResearch ManagerATPSP.O. Box 10081 00101Nairobi, KenyaTel: +254 20 2714092/168Fax: +254 20 2714028Email: [email protected]

107. Carol ThukuSenior SecretaryATPSP.O. Box 10081 00101Nairobi, KenyaTel: +254 20 2714092/168Fax: +254 20 2714028Email: [email protected]

108. Lucy MwangiProgramme & Publications AdministratorATPSP.O. Box 10081 00101Nairobi, KenyaTel: +254 20 2714092/168Fax: +254 20 2714028Email: [email protected]

109. Magayu K. MagayuATPS Editorial ConsultantP. O. Box 10081 00101Nairobi, KenyaTel: 254 20 721 233 245Email: [email protected]

64


MASERU

LESOTHO

NATIONAL CO-ORDINATORS

BÉNIN

Dr. Roch L. MongboAgronome, Socio AnthropologueDESA/FSAUniversité d’Abomey-CalaviCotonou, BéninTél: (229) 30 4139/50 0158/ 96 6446Email: [email protected]

BOTSWANA

Dr. John MothibiLecturer, Faculty of Engineering & TechnologyUniversity of BotswanaP/Bag 0061Gaborone, BotswanaTel: +267 3554348Fax: +267 3952309E-mail: [email protected]

BURKINA FASO

Dr. Benoit KaboreUniversité de Ouagadougou01 BP 4487Ouagadougou 01Tel: 226 812008/380715Email: [email protected]

CAMEROON

Mr. Sylvester Ndeso AtangaLecturer, Epidemology & Public HealthFaculty of Health SciencesUniversity of BueaP.O. Box 63South West ProvinceRepublic of CameroonTelefax: +237 32 2595Email: [email protected]

CÔTE D’ IVOIRE

Dr Arsène Konan KouadioChief of DivisionResearch in EconomicsCentre Ivoirien de RecherchesEconomiques et Sociales (CIRES)Cocody, Boulevard Latrille08 BP. 1295 ABIDJAN 08Côte d’ivoireTel.: (225) 22 444 363 / 22448942Fax.: (225) 22 440829Email: [email protected]@hotmail.com

ETHIOPIA

Dr. Dejene AredoAssociate Professor of EconomicsAddis Ababa University

P.O. Box 1176Addis Ababa, EthiopiaTel: +251 1 551163Fax: +251 1 551399Email: [email protected]

THE GAMBIA

Mr. Ernest R. AubeeFase ProgrammeUNDPKofi Annan Street, Cape PointBakau, The GambiaTel: +220 495071/74/89Fax: +220 494758Email: [email protected]

GHANA

Mr. George Owusu EssegbeySenior Scientific SecretarySTEPRI/C.S.I.R.P.O. Box CT 519,Accra, GhanaTel: +233 21 773856Fax: +233 21 773068Email: [email protected]

KENYA

Mr. Alex R. GacuhiP. O. Box 30568Nairobi, KenyaTel: +254 20 216947Fax: +254 20 215349Email: [email protected]

LESOTHO

Prof. Zacharia A. MatselaRetired Professor of EducationNational University of LesothoP.O. Roma 180LesothoTel: +266 340601Fax: +266 340000Email: care of Limakatso [email protected]

MALAWI

(Acting)Dr. Julius MangisoniSenior LecturerUniversity of MalawiBunda College of AgricultureRural Development DepartmentP.O. Box 219,Lilongwe, MalawiTel: +265 01277434/419/222Fax: +265 01 277364Email: [email protected]@yahoo.co.uk

65


MASERU

LESOTHO

MALI

Dr. Sidiki Gabriel DembéléAgrochimie/Agroforesterie et Fertilité des solsBureau Ouest-Africain d’Appui Organisational et deTechnologies AppropiéesB.P. E 3730, Bamako, MaliTél. : (223) 26 2559Fax : (223) 23 1086Cell : (223) 71 3806Email : [email protected]

MOZAMBIQUE

Eng. Lourino Alberto ChemaneICT and Planning AdvisorExecutive Secretariat, ICT Policy CommissionBairro da CoopRua Particular Dr. Antonio de Almeida61 R/C Direito, MaputoMoçambiqueTel: +258 1 309398Fax: +258 1 302289Email: [email protected]

NIGERIA

Prof. Michael C. MadukweProfessor, Department of Agricultural ExtensionUniversity of NigeriaNsukka, Enugu StateNigeriaTel: +234 42 771019Fax: +234 42 771500Email: [email protected] [email protected]

Prof. Femi OlokesusiNigerian Institute for Socialand Economic Research (NISER)P.M.B 5 UI Post OfficeOyo Road, OjooIbadan, NigeriaTel: +234 2 8103345/8102904Fax: +234 2 2413121Email: [email protected]

SENEGAL

Dr. Medou DiakhatéConsultant – SISERA &External Lecturer - IDEPBP 12160 Dakar – SenegalPhone: (221) 559-9589E-mail: [email protected]

SIERRA LEONE

Mr. Chris SquireHead, Dept of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of Sierra Leonec/o Computech, 22 Pultney St.

P.O. Box 603Freetown, Sierra LeoneTel: +232 22 227831Fax: +232 22 227453Email: [email protected]

SWAZILAND

Dr. Musa DubeFaculty of AgricultureUniversity of SwazilandLuyengo CampusP. O. Luyengo, SwazilandTel: +268 5283021-3Fax: +268 83021/83441Email: [email protected]

TANZANIA

Mrs. Bitrina D. DiyamettSenior Scientific OfficerTanzania Council for Science and Technology(COSTECH)P.O. Box 32183Dar es Salaam, TanzaniaTel: +007 222 700745Fax: +007 222 775313Email: [email protected]

UGANDA

Dr. Joseph ObuaFaculty of Forestry & Nature ConservationMakerere UniversityP.O. Box 7062Kampala, UgandaTel: +256 41 543 647Fax: +256 41 533 574Email: [email protected]

ZAMBIA

Ms. Charlotte M. WonaniLecturerDevelopment Studies Dept.University of ZambiaP.O. Box 32379Lusaka, ZambiaTel: +260 1 252514/292884Fax: +260 1 253952Email:[email protected]

ZIMBABWE

Mr. Benson ZwizwaiDeputy DirectorInstitute of Development StudiesP. O. Box 880Harare, ZimbabweTel: +263 4 333341/3Fax: +263 4 333345Email: [email protected]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations

Organization of Conference and Workshop

Conference and Workshop Opening Ceremonies

Conference Plenary Presentations

Methodology Workshop

Closure of Conference and Workshop

Comments and Review by Participants

Report from ATPS Secretariat

Report from the National Co-ordinators Meeting

Appendices(i) Opening Speech(ii) Workshop Programme(iii) List of Participants

Afric

an

Tech

nolo

gy

Polic

y St

udie

s N

etw

ork

Science and Technology andFood Security in Africa

Report of the 2003 ATPS Annual Workshop andConference held on November 10 - 15, 2003

MASERULESOTHO

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ISBN: 9966-916-33-4

PUBLISHED BY ATPS COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT

A report of the 2002 Annual Workshop of the African Technology Policy Studies Network held atNicon Hilton, Abuja, Nigeria, from November 11 to 15, 2002.

© 2004 African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS)

Printed by Newtec ConceptsP.O. Box 14180 00800 WestlandsNairobi,KenyaTel: 4449849, Fax: 4450399

ABOUT THE AFRICAN TECHNOLOGY POLICY STUDIES NETWORK

The African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS) is a multi-disciplinary network ofresearchers, policy makers, actors in the private sector and other end users interested in generating,promoting and strengthening innovative science and technology policies in Africa. With a regionalsecretariat in Nairobi, the network operates through national chapters in 17 countries, with anexpansion plan to cover the entire sub-Saharan Africa.

One of the objectives of the network is to disseminate research results to policy makers, legislators,the organized private sector, civil society, mass media and farmers’ groups through publications,dialogue and advocacy. Among its range of publications are the Working Paper Series (WPS),Research Paper Series (RPS), Special Paper Series (SPS), Technopolicy Briefs and WorkshopReports.

ATPS is supported by a growing number of donors including the International Development ResearchCentre (IDRC), the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Rockefeller Foundation, the WorldBank, the OPEC Fund, Ford Foundation, Coca-Cola Eastern Africa, the African Development Bank,infoDev and the Royal Dutch Government.

For more information on ATPS Contact: The Executive Director, The African Technology PolicyStudies Network, 3rd Floor, The Chancery, Valley Road, P.O. Box 10081 00100 General Post Office,Nairobi, Kenya.Email: [email protected]: +254-020-2714092/168/498 Fax: +254-020-2714028Website: http://www.atpsnet.org

1.0 organization of conference and workshop1.0 organization of conference and workshop venue, date...

Documents